Sitting of 20 May 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM) (No. 2) BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
    EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

      WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Wednesday 26 May.

      WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

        BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
        Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
        Debate to be resumed on Wednesday 26 May.

  CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Wednesday 26 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Constitutional Talks
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current state of the constitutional talks in Northern Ireland.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the present status of the inter-party talks concerning Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The Government are intent on promoting further political dialogue between the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and the British and Irish Governments, commencing as soon as practicable. I shall be seeking early meetings with the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties to hear their views on the way ahead. I also plan to discuss the matter with the Irish Government.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in condemning the wholly pointless bomb in Belfast city centre this morning? Will he confirm that that sort of outrage will not affect any constitutional talks? Will he join me in urging the Dublin Government to condemn the terrorist disruption this morning?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I whole-heartedly and utterly join my hon. Friend in condemning this latest outrage. I have noted the contrast between yesterday and today. Yesterday, the people of Northern Ireland, on a universal suffrage, went to the polls; today, the IRA went for the people of Northern Ireland in an attempt to maim and murder at random and destroy their livelihoods. So much for the IRA's self-proclaimed campaign, the struggle for freedom.
    I assure my hon. Friend of my belief that the Irish Government are as deeply opposed to this sort of outrage as we are, and our opposition is total. It will no doubt be a long fight, but it will not be the first one to which our country has stuck, and won.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The whole House joins the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his condemnation of the bombings in Belfast this morning. I am sure that all hon. Members wish to convey our sympathies to those who have been maimed and injured. However, those bombings merely confirm the need for the democratic processes to be upheld and for the talks to continue. There is no place in our democracy for terrorists or terrorism.
    What discussions has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had with the Irish Government—the co-sponsors of the talks—on the content of the proposals that he intends to present when the talks reconvene?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her opening remarks, which are heartening but not surprising. On the question of the constitutional and political talks, the resumption of those—or they might be described as further talks—represent the best way forward

    353
    in achieving the objectives that the House so overwhelmingly endorsed when my predecessor announced them in March 1991. It is important that we should now give some direction and focus to those talks and I propose, therefore, to table some propositions on behalf of the British Government.
    The hon. Lady asked what consultation there has been. These will be British proposals, but, naturally enough, I wish to consult my opposite number in Dublin about the ideas that we shall put forward, although it will not be a joint paper. I was glad to see that, on 15 May in Washington, Mr. Spring said that we had been having an exchange of views.
    He said:
    "We have been in active contact and I have to say that I believe we are working very well together to try to get resumption of the dialogue."
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the prerequisite to peace and political progress the unequivocal defeat of the Irish Republican Army? Is it not the case that so long as members of that organisation, with bombs and bullets, seek to maim and intimidate, democracy as we know it will be a fragile flower? Therefore, will my right hon. and learned Friend devote his energies wholly to the first priority, which is to ensure that terrorism is defeated and the IRA no longer poses a threat to freedom and liberty within the Province?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The elimination of terrorism is, indeed, the Government's first priority, and it will remain so. Democracy is a good deal stronger in Northern Ireland than my hon. Friend perhaps implies in his question. Those who are responsible for destroying the peace are relatively small in number, but are of unmatched evil in their character. The people of Northern Ireland are very resilient. They are determined to hold on to their democracy and they will do so. But the Government's primary purpose is to achieve the elimination of terrorists of whatever character, and that will remain the case.
    Mr. Trimble: I am sure that the House will be glad to know that despite the bomb outside our party headquarters this morning, that headquarters is now back in operation and functioning. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that any proposals that he brings forward will have to be based on more than wishful thinking. He will know from the last talks that we ran into some serious obstacles—obstacles that lie uniquely within the role of the two Governments and are uniquely for them to solve. I refer, of course, to the illegal territorial claim and the immoral diktat. I should be grateful, therefore, if the Secretary of State would let us know what progress he has made in defusing those obstacles.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman speaks, I think, of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the British Government, together with the Irish Government, have jointly said that if, as a result of discussion and negotiation, it is possible to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement with another agreement or similar instrument that would carry broader support, they would welcome that.
    As to articles 2 and 3, I welcome the fact that the Irish Government have said that they are prepared to initiate
    354
    and bring forward legislation to amend articles 2 and 3 as part of an overall settlement of the process in which we are engaged.
    Mr. McNamara: In his Liverpool speech, the Secretary of State reported that Metternich, on hearing of the death of a political opponent, asked, "What did he mean by that?" We put the same question when the Secretary of State talks about putting his proposals to the participants. When the Secretary of State makes his proposals, will he be merely stating those areas where he believes that the parties have been moving towards an agreement or will he be stating those areas where he feels that the parties should come to an agreement and where he has proposals to overcome difficulties or will he be creating new parameters for the talks, which he seemed to be doing in his Liverpool speech, abandoning the three-strand approach and the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The last point of the question causes me great surprise. I have made it abundantly clear that the Government remain committed to the three-strand approach and are not in the business of promoting a single-strand approach, first dealing with the internal arrangements of Northern Ireland. As to the remainder, I have already made it clear that the time has come for the British Government to accede to requests that they give some direction and focus to the talks if they are to take place. Accordingly, we shall put forward propositions to the parties first of all. Their purpose will be to build on the wide area of progress that was made last year and to make suggestions that may help people to come forward. It will not be a blueprint, but suggestions that may give some focus and direction to talks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

    Electricity Prices
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had on the future price of electricity in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): The Secretary of State and I have received representations from a number of bodies and individuals, notably the Action Group on Northern Ireland Electricity Prices, the Confederation of British Industry, the chairman of the consumer committee, and some Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulatory framework for electricity now in place in Northern Ireland will ensure that efficiency and competition will drive down costs, and that reduced costs will lead to lower electricity prices—unlike the Opposition policy, which suggests that after achieving reduced costs, additional taxation should be imposed on utilities, which would make electricity more expensive?
    Mr. Atkins: It is fair to say that Northern Ireland suffers in one respect in respect of energy, in that there is no opportunity to use gas there. The introduction of a gas interconnector in the not-too-distant future, together with the Scottish interconnector, will provide a great deal of extra resource and competition, which I hope will drive prices down.
    Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is completely wrong when he says that efficiency will drive down prices. Anyone who heard the statements on the prospectus issued the other day will know that it was said that electricity prices will rise considerably over the next four years. What prospect does that offer those attempting to attract industry to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: Such is the interest—which I hope will be fulfilled—in the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity that 600,000 people have already applied for the necessary details. I venture to suggest that a good number of them live in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so I suggest that he should be a little cautious about being critical of what I am sure will prove to be a great success and yet another example of privatised industry being returned to those who ought to own it—all the consumers.
    Mr. Stott: The Minister will recall that during the appropriation debate in February, I warned him that the Electricity Consumers Council in Northern Ireland had obtained information that electricity prices would rise by a massive 15 per cent. after privatisation—a fact which he refused to deny. Given that industrial and domestic electricity prices in Northern Ireland are already the highest in these islands, and from next year will attract 15 per cent. value added tax, how can the Minister justify pursuing the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity —when the business community does not want it, industry cannot afford it, and all the political parties in Northern Ireland have opposed it?
    Mr. Atkins: The people—to the tune of 600,000 of them appear to want it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to listen to that message.

    Shopping Centres
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with retailers' organisations about future shopping centre developments in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: None as such. However, from time to time, I and my officials have had discussions with individual retail outlets about specific developments.
    Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency on Creggan Enterprise and the work that it has done at the Rathmore centre in Londonderry? Does the Minister accept that he and his Administration need to do much more to encourage retailers, including the Co-operative Wholesale Society, to participate in shopping centres such as that at Rathmore and throughout Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: I am pleased to offer my congratulations to any retail operation that wants to open in Northern Ireland. Recently, I visited the Co-op in Yorkgate in Belfast, which is a splendid location and one which I know will attract a lot of custom. That is true of many other organisations, such as Marks and Spencer, whose activities in Northern Ireland played a significant part in the results that it recently announced. We will do all that we can to attract retail developments, large or small. The hon. Gentleman is not entirely fair with his implicit
    356
    criticism. If he speaks to those who are interested in such developments in Northern Ireland, he will find that they receive total support from us already.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that most shopping centres in Northern Ireland are thriving in spite of terrorist attacks? Does he agree that the message from Northern Ireland is simple—the retailers of that Province will not give in to terrorism?
    Mr. Atkins: As ever, my hon. Friend's statement is very helpful. I am not one to spend as much time in shops as my wife, who tells me that the city of Belfast has the best shopping centre that she has had the opportunity to visit, even allowing for centres in England. Yes, the message from Northern Ireland retailers the length and breadth of the Province is that they will not be deterred by the antics of the paramilitaries, business will go on and they will provide a first-rate service for all customers, wherever they come from.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the development of retail centres, does the Minister accept that a lot of high street shopping exists, especially along the Newtownards, Woodstock and Lisburn roads and that it is important to keep such shopping in the community? Does he agree that the Government could help by ensuring that compensation bills are paid faster when traders are hit by IRA terrorists, to enable them to get back in business again?
    Mr. Atkins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Clearly, there is always room for improvement in the quality and variety of shops and we certainly wish to encourage that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and everywhere else. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), the Minister of State, will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks about compensation and if he has concerns, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be happy to discuss them.
    Dr. Hendron: In regard to shopping centre development in Northern Ireland and in the centre of Belfast, I must also refer to the bomb that went off in Belfast city centre this morning on the edges of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Some people were injured there today. Will the Secretary of State join me in sympathising with them, the retailers, the official Unionist party—whose headquarters were damaged—and with those people responsible for promoting the beautiful grand opera house building, which was virtually destroyed by the Provos about one and a half years ago? That has happened once again and we all condemn them.
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose presence demonstrates that organisations that support terrorism will not win. I am grateful to him for his remarks, as is everyone in Belfast, which is a marvellous city. It is one of the great cities of the world and it has achieved remarkable success, is doing so now and will continue to do so, with the determination and resilience that sees off the sort of evil people who committed that offence today.

    Constitutional Talks
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the resumption of the talks process concerning the future of Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) earlier today.
    Miss Lestor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will publish the proposals that he intends to present to the inter-party talks, so that there can be discussions on them in the House and beyond?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: No. I am sorry that I have to disappoint the hon. Lady. Last time round, we decided that the proceedings would be confidential and, on balance, that was a sensible decision, although it was not altogether one way. I am afraid that, at least at present, the answer is no.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members follow progress in Northern Ireland with great care? In those talks, would he welcome a positive contribution towards thinking and action to establish local authorities similar to those in the rest of the United Kingdom, with similar powers and responsibilities?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is a very widespread desire for the restoration of democratically answerable responsibility within Northern Ireland, and I certainly share that view. I want to divest myself of a large proportion of my powers and to see them shouldered by people who will answer democratically for them to the people of Northern Ireland. The precise form that such government shall take is at the centre of our discussions, so my hon. Friend can take heart that the restoration of democratic answerability in Northern Ireland is widely desired; the format is a matter for discussion.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a deplorable case of double standards if the British Government's constitutional proposals were to exclude any all-Ireland dimension but were to include proposals for some form of Parliament for a gerrymandered Province of six counties, especially when the same British Government are refusing a Parliament for the entire nation of Scotland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that the hon. Gentleman can be absolutely confident that there will be no gerrymandering, whatever the outcome of these discussions.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the good will that exists at the moment between Dublin, Belfast and London is as strong and as good as it has ever been for many, many years and that we ought to build on it? Is it not a fact that the Irish Guards are serving both south and north of the border? I should like to know when my right hon. and learned Friend last visited the Irish Guards.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the co-operation between the two Governments. I pay tribute to the high degree of co-operation between, in particular, the Garda Siochana
    358
    and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As it so happens, I recently visited the Irish Guards. Whereas they are not exactly serving south of the border, the Irish Guards contain many officers and soldiers who live south of the border. As was made clear to me recently, they provide a very important component of that fine regiment.

    Tourism
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of tourists visiting Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: The Northern Ireland tourist board is making full use of its extensive powers and increased resources provided by the Government in 1992 to promote, market and develop Northern Ireland's tourism potential and to build even further on the success of the last few years.
    Ms Hoey: I am sure that the Minister, like all of us, will want to congratulate the tourist board on the work that it has done in very difficult circumstances. May I add my view on this morning's events, in particular the problems that the Europa hotel will face? I am sure, however, that, like everything else, business will be as usual there. Does not the Minister realise, however, that the situation of people who come to Northern Ireland as tourists is made more difficult because of the high fares, which we have discussed in this place before? Does he welcome American Trans Air's scheduled flight between New York and Belfast? Will he also try to do something to bring down airport charges, which are much higher in Europe than in America? As part of the tourism drive, will he do something to get fares down, so that more people can travel backwards and forwards between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and other parts of the world?
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. That is why I am delighted, as she invites me to do, to welcome the new flight to New York. It will offer something that did not previously exist, even from the Republic—a direct flight from city to city. In addition, a new flight is to begin shortly, which is already operational in part, between Belfast city airport and Gatwick. Another flight is proposed from Belfast city airport to London docklands. A lot of competition is being generated, which is an indication of the desire of people from other parts of the United Kingdom to visit Northern Ireland, and visa versa. That is confirmed by the amount of activity across the sea in terms of the ferries and the competition and price reductions that are being offered as a result. In those circumstances, anything that we can do to reduce fares and charges we should like to do. However, as the hon. Lady will understand, these are matters as much for the European Community and the Civil Aviation Authority as they are for me. Nevertheless, I will certainly ensure that her point of view, which is shared by many others, is put to those bodies.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister bear in mind the extravagant charges at Belfast airport, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) said? Can he not do something to get the charges there down? The airport now charges for the number of seats on the aircraft, even though they are not all taken up, which creates difficulty for air carriers because of the expense.
    Mr. Atkins: I am conscious of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Clearly it is in everyone's interest that flying to Northern Ireland or using any other methods of transport should be as competitive as possible. That is why the resurgence of the new flights and services that are being offered from Belfast City airport and Aldegrove are so important. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which I shall consider.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that I spent a day as a sort of tourist in Northern Ireland last week and that I did not find the permanent vehicle checkpoint on the road south of Newry an especially welcoming experience? Would any credible terrorist be daft enough to get caught in that permanent checkpoint? Would not it be better for tourism and local people and a better counter-terrorist policy to rely on random checkpoints rather than that type of hideous edifice?
    Mr. Atkins: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman makes the point in that way; such comments do not contribute to our efforts to attract tourists. However, I welcomed his presence at the events that I was responsible for launching. He will understand, as a long-serving Member, that checkpoints are set up on the advice of the Chief Constable and that if there were no terrorist activity, there would be no need for them.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the main factors leading to the changes in unemployment levels in the Province between March and April.
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.
    Mr. Atkins: Figures released earlier today show that on 8 April 1993 there were 105,336 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland, which represents a decrease of 680 claimants compared with the previous month and a reduction of more than 2,600 since January. I have not yet made a detailed assessment, but I believe that the work of the various industrial development agencies has contributed to the welcome reduction.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news for a part of the United Kingdom which has always experienced high unemployment? Is not that strong evidence that Government economic policy is working to create jobs, which is reflected in other figures published today, and does it not give the lie to the claims of the Opposition, who always revel in doom and gloom on that issue?
    Mr. Atkins: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. In no sense are we complacent about the reduction in unemployment for the third month in a row. There are still substantial problems in finding new jobs, encouraging companies to locate in Northern Ireland and in expanding existing operations. However much the figure is reduced, it is still unacceptable and we will continue to work as hard as we can to ensure that we provide as many jobs for as many people in Northern Ireland as possible.
    Mr. Cryer: Does not the attitude of Ministers show the incredible complacency and lack of care for the 3 million people who are in the misery dole queue created by their policies? When are the Government likely to reduce unemployment in Northern Ireland to its level of April 1979? The Government are fond of making comparisons with the previous Labour Government, but in 1979 there were 52,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland, compared with 105,000 today. In 14 years, the Government have created more than twice as much unemployment in Northern Ireland. When are they going to get near the figures achieved by the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Atkins: I should like the hon. Gentleman to come to Northern Ireland to see for himself the work that has been done to offer jobs, to create employment and to attract new companies to deal with the problems. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who pays careful attention to what Ministers say, will have heard my comment that we are not in any sense complacent about the welcome reduction. We are working as hard as we possibly can to ensure that other people do the same.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a double challenge: to continue to reduce the proportion of people who are out of work—17 per cent. six years ago at the height of boom and about 14 per cent. now —and to ensure that the difference between unemployment among the non-Roman Catholic and the Catholic populations reduces, as there is 8 per cent. unemployment among Protestants and Presbyterians whereas unemployment among Roman Catholics is far higher than average?
    Mr. Atkins: I am conscious of my hon. Friend's concern about the balance of unemployment across the communities which, through the auspices of the "making Belfast work" initiative and other agencies, we are doing a great deal to address. There is no easy solution to the problem, but unless we try we shall never stand a chance, and my hon. Friend's support is gratefully received.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that unemployment in Northern Ireland would be much higher were it not for the willingness of political parties in Northern Ireland to co-operate, talk and work together, and with industry? Does he believe that that is a much better solution to the problems of unemployment than phoney circus talks?
    Mr. Atkins: I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman's support and that of his colleagues and all representatives from Northern Ireland in this place is very much welcomed by a wide variety of those who wish to invest and the agencies which are encouraging other people to invest. His support is most important in this context and I hope that it will continue. I do not think that he would expect me to be drawn on his latter comment, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have heard. My task is to ensure that the economy improves, and the support of all the parties and their representatives is vital in that.

    Brook Advisory Centres
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding is given by his Department to the Brook advisory centres.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The Department of Health and Social Services does not directly fund advisory centres. However, the Brook advisory centre in Belfast is funded by the Eastern health and social services board which received a grant of £30,000 in 1991–92 and £31,350 in 1992–93. Funding is expected to continue at a similar level this year.
    Mrs. Winterton: Why is my hon. Friend's Department supporting an organisation which promotes teenage promiscuity, thereby leading to more conceptions and abortions, when its presence in Northern Ireland is vociferously opposed by hon. Members from the Province, 12 local authorities, both the Free Presbyterian and Roman Catholic churches, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Democratic Unionist party? Will my hon. Friend ensure that the relevant hospital board ceases to channel funds to that unwelcome organisation, which is damaging the moral and physical welfare of youngsters by its activities?
    Mr. Hanley: Health and social service boards have a responsibility to secure provision for family planning services to meet the needs of their resident populations. The Eastern board has identified a clear need for sexually active young people to have access to contraceptive advice and services. Within the board's area at present there are about 600 births per year to teenage mothers, about 84 per cent. of whom are unmarried. The centre has identified a need and, while it acts within the law, the Government will not close it down.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister emphasise that access to good family planning will stop unwanted teenage births? Those who talk all the time about trying to remove funding for clinics such as the Brook are contributing to the very problem which they pretend to decry.
    Mr. Hanley: That is indeed the intention of the Eastern health and social services board.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Minister read the literature that the Brook clinic is giving out? Is it Government policy to advocate that young people should not take their parents into their confidence?
    Mr. Hanley: As I have said, as long as the Brook clinic acts within the law there is no reason for the Government to order the Eastern health and social services board to close it. In the six months since the clinic has been in operation, it has received 344 visits from people seeking advice and 600 telephone calls, in spite of the fact that a number of people have been trying to keep callers out of the building. I believe that the service is needed and, statutorily, it is being provided. However, if any breaches of the law occur, the Government will not hesitate to close it down.

    Constitutional Talks
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the resumption of the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will outline the proposals which he intends to present at the inter-party talks relating to Northern Ireland.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).
    It would be wrong to reveal in advance of further confidential talks the outline proposals which the Government may table as a basis for discussion. I shall seek to set a direction and focus to resumed talks by tabling proposals which seem most likely to build usefully on the progress made last year towards agreement. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if the House would settle down and if conversations could be much quieter.
    Mr. McAllion: If the inter-party talks fail to produce a positive outcome in terms of an institutionalised all-Ireland dimension, will the Secretary of State confirm that it is not the Government's policy to seek to impose an internal solution in Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not approach these matters on the basis that they will fail or on hypothetical circumstances. I and the enormous number of people whom I meet in Northern Ireland—especially the business community—wish the process to succeed. That is the positive way to advance.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is the Secretary of State confident that the proposals that he will make cannot or will not be portrayed as pre-conditions or pre-determinants? Further, is he confident that all the relevant parties will take part in the talks without pre-conditions?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am entirely confident that the proposals of which I have spoken will not be seen as conditions, a blueprint, a template or anything like that. They are exactly as I have described them—proposals which are designed to give a sense of direction and focus for talks which I trust will take place.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in view of the further bomb outrage of the past 24 hours outside the Unionist headquarters in Belfast, it is vital that there is an early resumption of the inter-party talks to find a permanent political solution to the problems?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I draw the House's attention once again to the contrast between yesterday's events, when the people of Northern Ireland exercised their democratic rights in free and democratic universal suffrage, and today's events, when the terrorists sought to destroy the people of Northern Ireland, knowing that they cannot achieve their political ends by any means other than violence, or so they believe, but they are wrong about that.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government will not be bombed and bullied into making proposals which would result in the majority of people of Northern Ireland having to accept a situation that they would find offensive?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Everyone concerned has agreed that there is no possibility of a successful outcome to our search for an overall political settlement unless it is an outcome that will secure the agreement of a wide range of the population. There has to be very widespread agreement if it is to be durable and workable. That is what we are looking for and what I hope we shall achieve.
    Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State said that he will be giving direction and focus in his proposals, based on the areas of agreement which he believes were reached in the previous talks. What were those areas of agreement?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: Substantial progress was made in a number of directions, and a number of things happened which, a few years ago, would never have been thought possible—some Unionists went to Dublin and Irish Ministers came to Stormont and participated in talks that lasted for many weeks. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might find it in his heart to welcome those things and even to congratulate those who shared responsibility for them. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might find it in his heart to express a little pleasure that so many new things happened, which were wholly constructive and advantageous in character. I hope that that progress will be resumed.

    Sunday Trading
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent review he has undertaken of the practice of Sunday trading in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hanley: There have been no recent reviews of Sunday trading in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree than as long as Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom—and it will continue to remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as its people want—any future legislation made in the House concerning Sunday trading should also apply to the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right in saying that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom. However, this matter has been dealt with in the countries on an individual basis. If there is a change in the law on Sunday trading in England and Wales it could give rise to a review of the law in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland deals with this matter in its own way, and local consultation will be supremely important.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that more people in Northern Ireland are concerned not about the increase in Sunday trading, but about the practice of providing three months' employment for four hours a week and the turnover of cheap labour that is destroying some of the economy?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many issues cover the Sunday trading problem and there is no doubt that trading practices in general should be looked at continually, but, again, we should take local considerations into account.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister recall his big idea of the citizens charter, aimed at giving individuals swift redress? Can he explain why veterans of the atomic tests which took place on Christmas island and elsewhere over 30 years ago, who suffered the horrendous effects of radiation, have still not received compensation? People in the United States who suffered in a similar way have been compensated. The Prime Minister assured the House as long ago as 4 December 1990, in reply to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), that the matter was to receive his urgent attention.
    The Prime Minister: Yes. About 10 days ago I wrote again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other hon. Members who expressed an interest in the matter. We are still waiting for medical reports on which we can make our judgments. I have sought to have the medical reports expedited, but there is further examination to be done. As soon as these medical reports are received we can reach a decision.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Following his statement yesterday, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to earlier interpretations of the Maastricht treaty and its protocols, he is now advised that the opt out from monetary union extends to the exchange rate mechanism and that Britain has no obligation, under the terms of the treaty, to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism unless and until we decide to seek to enter a single European currency?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. In essence my hon. Friend is quite right. I have had no fresh advice, but that has always been the position. Nothing in the Maastricht treaty obliges us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. What the treaty does is make it explicitly clear that we retain responsibility for monetary policy in stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union as long as we do not participate in a single monetary policy. As my hon. Friend knows, because of the opt out that I negotiated at Maastricht, we would not enter into a single currency until and unless the House had specifically approved it.
    Mr. John Smith: Can the Prime Minister give the House a guarantee that the Government will not make millions of pensioners and children pay for prescriptions?
    The Prime Minister: I had optimistically thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might welcome a third successive fall in unemployment, but I should perhaps have known him better. May I explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—so that there is no doubt

    365
    either to him or millions of people throughout the country —exactly the review that is taking place on public expenditure? My answer to every scare story that the right hon. and learned Gentleman produces will be the same—I hear that he was peddling them earlier today.
    My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been instructed to examine all our public expenditure to ensure that it is well targeted and that it delivers value for money, and to see where savings in taxpayers' money can be found. However, he knows that in doing so he must protect the position of the most vulnerable members of society, and that is what he is doing. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is being presented with options. He has not yet considered the options or selected those worth further consideration.
    No decisions have been made, and no decision is imminent. Decisions will not be made until the public expenditure round in the autumn. Many options will need to be discarded, but we need to examine public expenditure, and we shall both maintain our manifesto commitments and protect the most vulnerable people in society. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now give up his tedious weekly shroud waving.
    Mr. John Smith: I should have known better than to expect a straight answer from the Prime Minister. No one in the country will know whether his answer means yes or no. The Prime Minister talks about his manifesto commitments; may I remind him that millions of ordinary families are already deeply worried about having to pay another £8·50 per week next year and even more the year after, despite his tax pledges. Now families face the threat of an additional tax on being ill. Why are the Government so intent on making ordinary families in this country pay the price of their economic incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should not peddle those scare stories and frighten people. I have made it absolutely clear that we shall protect vulnerable members of society. "We should be prepared to re-examine everything; I have not ruled anything out"—[Interruption.] Those are not my words but those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was speaking about his review of social policy.
    Mr. John Smith: Just over a year ago the Prime Minister promised lower taxes and no cuts in public expenditure. We know that he has broken one promise already, and clearly he is planning to break another. Is it any wonder that no one any longer believes anything that he says?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should stop trying to frighten vulnerable people for his own party advantage. I say to him in all friendliness that it will do him no good in the end. We shall honour our manifesto commitments. Since the general election the right hon. and learned Gentleman has publicly junked all his manifesto commitments. The contrast is obvious, and the public will know which party keeps its promises, for its members sit here, and which party seeks week after week to frighten people with scare stories, for its members sit over there.
    Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kynoch: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures show a further fall this month, for the third month in a row? Does he agree that that is a further welcome sign that the recovery is starting to work through to where we all want to see it, in the jobcentres and in a meaningful and stable reduction in unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, that is welcome to everyone. There are those who mention unemployment when it is going down as well as when it is going up. Unemployment is still too high, but today's figures offer further hope for unemployed people. Not only has unemployment now fallen for the third month in a row, but the number of people employed in manufacturing industry has risen for the third consecutive month, and the number of new vacancies notified to jobcentres is more than it was a year ago. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) wishes to continue with his smears, perhaps he will put up or shut up.
    Mr. Foulkes: Following the Tory party conference in Scotland, is the Prime Minister aware of the extent of opposition to water privatisation in Scotland, even among Conservatives? Will he now end the uncertainty and give a clear and unequivocal pledge that there will be no privatisation of water in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that he wished to make, and he knows as well as I do that the options are set out in the consultation paper "Investing for the Future". We are considering those options. When we have finished our considerations, we shall announce the result.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his view, stated during the last election, that first-past-the-post is the best electoral system; one which has served us well for centuries? Is it not typical of Opposition Members to want to introduce a proportional representation system —a desire reinforced by their decision to abstain on the historically important European vote this evening?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that I remain in favour of the first-past-the-post system. I am against proportional representation, and I do not need a referendum to tell me what my view on the matter should be.
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir David Steel: Has the Prime Minister been able to examine the workings of the community care schemes since they came into operation on 1 April? Is the confusion and anxiety as great in Huntington as it is elsewhere? Will he promise a full review of the schemes at the end of the first three months of working?
    The Prime Minister: The scheme is, with the consent of hon. Members in all parts of the House and people throughout the community care system, a great advance. People have wanted care in the community for a long time, and they now have it. It is a very substantial change. We shall, of course, keep the matter under review to make sure that it is working satisfactorily. There are bound to be some difficulties at the beginning of a change on this scale. It is a welcome change, one for which we have looked for many years, and we intend it to be a success.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the increasing suffocation of London by heavy traffic, which is now damaging job prospects in the capital? Will he accept the congratulations of my constituents in Ealing and of the whole of London on his determination to go ahead with the crossrail project? Will the Government do everything possible to expedite the passage of the enabling measure through the House? May we have an assurance that the construction of the project, which will bring jobs to all parts of London, including Ealing, will start yesterday, if possible?
    The Prime Minister: That might be rather difficult. Crossrail is important for London and for jobs throughout the country, and I know that it will be particularly welcome to hon. Members with London constituencies. It will be a joint venture with the private sector and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill will take place in the House next month. Crossrail will obviously make a dramatic difference to London's transport system, as will the Jubilee line extension, to which the Government are also committed —[Interruption.]—as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is heckling, may wish to know.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The Prime Minister may recall that I wrote to him on 30 March about assisted area status for London. I have since received a holding reply. He will know that if London were to receive assisted area status, the support of the Government would be needed and that
    368
    13 London boroughs, including Lewisham, would be affected. When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give me a positive reply?
    The Prime Minister: I very much hope that we will be able to reach a decision on changes to the assisted areas map before too long. We are well advanced with our examination of it and are looking at the various criteria that need to be considered. I would certainly hope that we would have a decision, and announce it, well before the House rises for the summer.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winterton: I warmly welcome the reduction in unemployment for the third consecutive month, for which Government policies are in part responsible. Will my right hon. Friend give me, the House and the people of this country an assurance that he will not undermine the recovery in our economy by re-entering the exchange rate mechanism? In addition, will he give the pensioners and children of this country an assurance that he will not permit prescriptions to be paid for by the retired or by the young?
    The Prime Minister: I warmly welcome part of my hon. Friend's question: I share his pleasure at the fall in unemployment. We now have the right conditions which I hope will lead to a consistent fall in unemployment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are saying that the figures are a fiddle may be interested to know that the Department's director of statistics, a civil servant, today issued a statement which said:
    "I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures."
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may sit there giggling and making accusations, but he ought not to attack public officials who are not in a position to answer back.
    My hon. Friend will have heard me say earlier this week that we had no imminent intention of returning to the exchange rate mechanism because the circumstances for doing so were by no means appropriate at present. As for his second question, he clearly heard the detailed statement that I made to the House some moments ago.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Railways Bill.
TUESDAY 25 MAY—Completion of remaining stages of the Railways Bill.
Motion on the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) (Revocation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 26 MAY—Second Reading of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 27 MAY—Debates on the Adjournment.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the provisional business for the first week back after the spring Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
Motion relating to the Welsh Language Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 8 JUNE—Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1993.
Motions relating to the Legal Aid (Northern Ireland) Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 9 JUNE—Opposition day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced—and, for all I know, decided.
Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order.
THURSDAY 10 JUNE—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on administration, in so far as it relates to the Department of National Heritage's expenditure on the legislative framework and general arrangements for the press. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 11 JUNE—There will be a debate to take note of improved productivity in UK manufacturing on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Tuesday 25 May—Committee B, document No. 11096/92 relating to the safety and efficiency of nuclear power stations in non-member countries. Wednesday 26 May—Committee A, document No. 11011/92 relating to the future development of the common transport policy; Committee B, various documents relating to carbon/energy tax, details to be given in the Official Report. Wednesday 9 June —Committee A, documents Nos. 10344/91 and 5019/93 relating to marketing standards for milk and non-milk fats; Committee B, document No. 4180/93 relating to prospecting for and extraction of hydrocarbons.
370
[Tuesday 25 May:
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document:
11096/92 Community aid to promote nuclear safety in eastern Europe
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxv (1992–93).
Wednesday 26 May:
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document:
11011/92 Transport policy
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
HC 79-xxiii (1992–93) and HC 79-xxvii (1992–93).
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Documents:

7018/92

Carbon/Energy Tax

8328/92

4182/93

7847/92

+COR1

7757/92

7569/92

5705/93

7157/92

SEC(92) 1996

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
HC 79-vii (1992–93), HC 79-xx (1992–93), HC 79-xviii (1992–93), HC 79-xxvi (1992–93), HC 79-xxix (1992–93), HC 79-xv (1992–93).
Wednesday 9 June:
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Community Documents:
10344/91 5019/93
Marketing standards for fats
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee:
HC 24-xiv (1991–92) and HC 79-xxiv (1992–93).
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document:
4180–93 Licensing of exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 79-xxi (1992–93).
Tuesday 8 June:
Legal Aid Regulations:
Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 121);
Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 123);
Legal Aid (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 122);
Legal Advice and Assistance (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) (S.I. No. 124).

371
Thursday 10 June: Estimates Day: class XI, vote 7, Department of National Heritage:
Administration; the fourth report from the National Heritage Committee, Session 1992–93, on privacy and media intrusion (HC 294) is relevant.]
Mr. Brown: I shall put to the Leader of the House a number of requests with which I am afraid he will be all too familiar.
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for continuing the practice of giving us more than a week's notice of the business ahead? It is widely appreciated in all parts of the House, and I urge him to continue with it. However, the Government need to be flexible in these matters. Therefore, may I ask him not to rule out a statement or debate in Government time on the situation in the former Yugoslavia?
May I also draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that on 28 January, and again on 25 February, I asked when we could expect the usual one-day debate on the Government's public expenditure plans? In view of today's 34 per cent. increase in Government borrowing April to April to cover the PSBR, is it not astonishing that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not willing to come to the House of Commons and share his problems with us?
May I ask the Leader of the House again for a debate on the defence estimates and for the Government to find time to discuss the affairs of Scotland, notably water privatisation and the so-called stocktaking exercise?
When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring forward proposals concerning the allocation of the six extra European Parliamentary seats and to explain how the legitimate expectations of the Boundary Commission to be involved in the process will be met?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps understandably—I suppose it has the merit of consistency, which we do not always see—has repeated a number of the demands that his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made last week. On several of them, including the requests he made in relation to Scotland, the extra European parliamentary seats and the Government's public expenditure plans, there is not very much I can add to what I said to the right hon. Lady last week.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's comments about my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary were a bit unreasonable, given that the Chief Secretary came to the House and made a statement and has certainly spoken in a number of debates since the public expenditure reviews, to which some reference has been made recently. were set in hand.
If it seemed right or necessary, of course the Government would arrange for statements to be made on the former Yugoslavia, or indeed elsewhere, should developments during the recess make that necessary.
I am rather more sympathetic to the learned Gentleman's request for a debate on the defence estimates than I am to some of his other requests, as I have already signalled to his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South. I realise that I have not been able to require that desire in what I have announced today, but I am looking for ways of meeting it in the not too distant future.
372
I thank the learned Gentleman for the kind words he said at the beginning of his remarks. It will not always be possible, but I am certainly working towards giving the House as much advance notice as I can of its business.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing concern up and down the country at what Sir John Banham and his commission are doing? May we please have an early debate on his proposals for Derbyshire? If he is proposing the creation of maxi district councils throughout the country, he will meet with opposition throughout the country.
Mr. Newton: I cannot be as forthcoming to my hon. Friend as he would wish. However, I cannot do badly because, last Tuesday, immediately after having to listen to the spring Adjournment motion debate in which my hon. Friend made a similar point, I went to the CBI annual dinner, and, lo and behold, I found myself talking at some length to Sir John Banham, so I was able to tell him that some of my hon. Friends had expressed reservations about his proposals. It was not a public conversation, but I hope that Sir John will not mind my saying in general terms that he said that he is always willing to listen to representations.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Irrespective of what side of the argument hon. Members are on, it is generally agreed on both sides of the House that the public are bewildered by the incomprehensible procedural wrangling surrounding the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Now that that process is beginning to wind down—I hope this evening—does the Leader of the House think that it is time to look at the way in which the House does its business? Can he assure the House that he will arrange for a statement or, better still, time for debate to try to get a bit of sanity into the way in which the House works?
Mr. Newton: I suspect that, at times, it is not only those outside who have been bemused by some of the procedures of the House. It would be rash for me—indeed for anyone who may hold this office—to undertake to sort out all the tangles to the extent that the hon. Gentleman thinks right. If there are lessons to be learnt, we shall try to learn them. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee is not in his place, but I am sure that he will be turning his fertile mind to ways of making further improvements.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Can my right hon. Friend announce today a date for the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill?
Mr. Newton: I may have given my hon. Friend an informal indication of it. He may have noted that I announced that, on Tuesday 8 June, the Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock. What is named for private business is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I would be somewhat surprised if that did not prove to be the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: The Leader of the House has made very welcome arrangements in the past for announcing recess dates. Can he tell the House why he has not yet announced the date at the end of July? Is it to be another pawn in the Maastricht negotiations with the Lords? Can he tell us when the House will rise?
Mr. Newton: I would not seek to make the hon. Gentleman, whom I much respect, a pawn in any negotiations, but I acknowledge that there are a number of uncertainties about the progress of important business which lead me to be cautious before proceeding in quite the way that the hon. Gentleman would like.
Mr. Richard Page: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns expressed about the risks to occupational pension schemes, perhaps personified by the disaster that overcame the Maxwell pensioners. Will he make time for a debate in which we can explore various ideas on how those schemes might be strengthened and come up with a way to provide a safety net for pensioners who may suffer when schemes fail?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise time for a debate. My hon. Friend, who has taken a close and significant interest in these matters over many months, will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has shown himself willing to consider ways to make improvements in this sector. As it happens, my right hon. Friend will be here to answer questions on Monday 7 June.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's failure earlier to answer the question about prescription charges, and the fact that the Tories have already increased those charges by more than 2,000 per cent. since they came to power, may we have an early statement giving us a categorical assurance that the Government have abandoned any move to reduce further eligibility for free prescriptions? Why should sick pensioners and the parents of sick children be expected to bail out this discredited Government?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend made absolutely clear the position on the question that was raised. I will not add to it.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend make time at an early moment for a debate on the reaction of some local authorities to compulsory competitive tendering? I ask that question for three reasons: first, so that I might draw to the attention of the House the unlawful termination of a grass cutting contract by Labour-controlled Plymouth city council, which was won lawfully in 1990 under compulsory competitive tendering by a company named Krinkles, the termination of which, in my view, is the greatest public scandal—
Madam Speaker: Order. Although the House may be interested in the hon. Gentleman's views on other occasions, this is not the moment for him to put them. If he would like to put his point briefly, I am sure that the Leader of the House will respond. His question must be brief, and he does not need to argue his case.
Mr. Streeter: May we have an urgent debate on the important matter of this unlawful termination, costing my constituents £750,000?
Mr. Newton: While I am not fully familiar with the details of the case to which my hon. Friend refers, it certainly sounds as if it may well merit a debate. However, much as I might wish to offer one, I must be mindful of the fact that we had a debate, I think on a Friday, on local government matters only a few weeks ago. Happily, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to raise the matter
374
soon, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is due to answer questions on Wednesday 26 May.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Leader of the House aware of the suggestion in today's press that the Government intend to change the law to remove the protection of workers who were automatically moved from either state or local government units into the private sector without their agreement? Will he please undertake to ensure that the Secretary of State who is responsible makes a public announcement in the House if any such suggestion is to be pushed?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, as with any of my right hon. Friends, would make any statement that it was felt was appropriate in relation to any proposal that they felt it right to present. I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend to whom she refers, the Secretary of State for Employment, will be here for questions even earlier than the Secretary of State for the Environment—that is to say, on Tuesday 25 May.
Mr. Phil Gallie: I welcome the verdict of the jury which vindicated the actions of three police officers in bringing to task those responsible for the Guildford bombings. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on compensation for those officers, who have suffered traumatic experiences?
Mr. Newton: Once again, I do not think that it would be possible for me to promise time for such a debate, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Why is the Leader of the House shrugging off the demand for a debate on the privatisation plans for Scottish water? Is he aware that his Scottish Office colleagues are briefing the Scottish press in private about their latest indications on the matter? If the Tory party wants to swallow Scottish water in two gulps rather than one, would not it be wise to share those views and test the temperature of the House first?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's question hangs on the request for a debate. I have said a number of times in recent weeks, indeed several times to the hon. Gentleman, although I understand why he continues to be so persistent, that the appropriate time for a debate is when the Government have some proposals. At the moment the Government are still considering the results of the consultation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that there is great concern in Northern Ireland about the proposed closure of many hospitals, including one of the largest maternity hospitals in Belfast, the Jubilee. I am sure that he is also aware of early-day motion 1798 on the subject which has been signed by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and me and by Belfast Members.
[That this House deplores the intended removal by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board of patients' choice for maternity services at the Belfast Jubilee Maternity Hospital when that hospital already complies with all of the quality, safety and other criteria laid down by the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, and

375
reflected in the Eastern Health and Social Services Board's own Prospectus for the Purchase of Maternity Services; and considers that this is contrary to the Patient's Charter.]
If he is not able to arrange a debate, will he refer this matter to the Northern Ireland Committee? Will he explain to the House how that Committee functions and how we can get business before it? On a previous occasion when I put a matter to the right hon. Gentleman, it was evidently scratched by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and we were not allowed to discuss it.
Mr. Newton: I shall leave aside the comments at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am not sure whether he had an opportunity to ask my right hon. and learned Friend about the matter during today's Northern Ireland questions, but I can confirm that I have received his request for a meeting of the Committee. At the moment I can only say that I want to assess what support there is among Northern Ireland Members before considering whether that would be an appropriate step.
Mr. John Denham: Does the Leader of the House agree that, if a fragile economic recovery is under way, nothing should happen to prevent it from developing? In the light of that, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to take an early opportunity, possibly next Tuesday, to make a statement about the position in the Southampton container terminal, which is on the verge of an industrial dispute provoked by the determination of management to sack workers and bring in casual workers?
The House must be given the opportunity to debate the threat to industrial peace from that sort of management action, which includes the recruitment of casual labour who have been asked whether they would be willing to cross picket lines. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House should discuss whether that sort of macho management is what this country needs when economic recovery may be getting under way?
Mr. Newton: I doubt whether I could or should promise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will make a statement. However, as the hon. Gentleman implied in his question—and as I have already told another hon. Member—my right hon. Friend will be here to answer questions next Tuesday. I can now predict one question and so ensure that my right hon. Friend is forewarned.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an early debate on the improvement in Britain's economic position? Is it not correct that the fall in unemployment that we have welcomed today is the result not only of the Government's current economic policy, but of the supply-side reforms of the 1980s? Is not this a useful opportunity to tell the House and the country that sustainable economic growth can come only from deregulated, free-market economics—something that only Conservative Members believe in?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend hardly needs me to say that I am sympathetic to his proposition. Indeed, I had thought of making similar comments in response to the previous question. I am glad to say that, just before coming here this afternoon, I had the pleasure of being present at a function—[interruption.]—related to the
376
motor industry—[Interruption.] It was a caring organisation concerned with providing residential care. At that function, it was clear that the motor industry was in a distinctly optimistic frame of mind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a further statement on the coal industry and the closure of pits? Does he recall that, when we debated the White Paper, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that a number of pits would be kept open on a care and maintenance basis? Is he aware that there has been a conspiracy between the Government and British Coal to shut those pits? Many miners are being offered redundancy payments which, if they do not take them on the spot, will be reduced by more than half later in the year, in compliance with the law of the land. Is it not high time that that conspiracy was broken?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the women who camped on Abingdon green, outside the House of Commons, the other day were told by the people with cameras that they had been instructed by the Government that in no circumstances should they take pictures of those women, who were protesting against the illegal closures?
Mr. Newton: I suppose that I must say—although, once again, I feel that it is hardly necessary—that I wholly reject the allegations that the hon. Gentleman so freely throws around about conspiracies of one sort or another. Frankly, his concerns would be a good deal more credible if he did not lard them with such silly allegations.
Mr. David Shaw: Will it be possible in the near future to have a debate on the need for continued restraint in public expenditure during which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary can be made aware of the fact that, based on current trends, it is likely that in the not too distant future more people will be employed in central and local government than in manufacturing industry?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be well aware that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is aware of concerns of the kind that he has expressed about public expenditure, and that is precisely why he is engaged on the reviews that appear to have led to some controversial speculation.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The usual question, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Newton: The answer is not quite as usual. For those who are not part of the group that takes part in these exchanges, may I say that this is about Members' interests. I hope that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests will not mind my saying that I had a further word with him last night on the convenient timing of a debate. However, at present I cannot give an exact date.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the Second Reading of the Crossrail Bill on 8 June. May we have a debate on roads next week so that I can raise the important matter of the proposed closure of part of Berkley avenue in my constituency, which is opposed by thousands of my constituents and myself, and on which we are awaiting the decision of the Department of Transport inspector who conducted an inquiry many months ago? We need his decision. May we have a debate so that I might secure it.
Mr. Newton: No one would be more surprised than my hon. Friend were I to promise the debate that he seeks, but I hope that he will take it in the friendly spirit that it is meant if I draw his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport will be here more or less continuously next Monday and Tuesday, either answering questions or dealing with the remaining stages of the Railways Bill. Thus, on a number of public and private occasions, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to nobble him.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent debate on the way in which the unemployment figures are compiled? The Prime Minister again today evaded a question on the serious things that are happening in the way in which the unemployment figures are put together, and the Secretary of State for Employment is signally trying to avoid a dialogue with me on the question of people who are clearly not sick and who are being diverted from the unemployment benefit list to the sickness benefit list. That is undermining the community health service as doctors are being inundated with pro forma forms from the Department of Employment to be completed in order to give a sick note to people who are clearly well. That is a fiddle, and the three months' good figures really are not so good after all.
Mr. Newton: I sometimes find it a bit strange that at almost one and the same time we hear such allegations together with allegations which are often thrown at the Secretary of State for Social Security about how the Government are attempting to take people off invalidity benefit by subjecting them to medical examinations.
Mr. Lewis: People are being taken off the unemployment benefit list and put on the sickness benefit list.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his question—and a long one it was, too.
Mr. Newton: If there is evidence, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, or for that matter my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, if it is for him, will consider it. As for the rest, my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Department's director of statistics has issued a statement, not on Ministers' behalf but on his own, saying that he has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the claimant count figures for recent months. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to attack an independent public official in relation to such a statement, let him do so, but we on the Conservative Benches will not join in.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is getting a little tired of colleagues asking for a debate on the Jopling report on the sittings of the House, but can he say whether we might have an early debate on that and whether he has had replies from other parties to the request that they should put forward what they believe should happen after the Jopling report so that we can, as a House of Commons, move forward together in a non-party political way?
Mr. Newton: I know that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who is unable to be here today, put some propositions some time ago and is aware
378
of the desire in all parts of the House to make some progress. She has told me that she is aware of that, and I await further developments.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Is the Leader of the House aware that in the past week relatives of those who died in the Waco fire have received notification that the bodies are now ready to be returned to Britain, but they have been informed that they may be asked to raise between £2,000 and £3,000 in order to bring the bodies back to Britain for burial here? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that there must be a number of constituents like my own who are pensioners or widows with no savings for whom that would be an impossible burden? When I contacted the Foreign Office—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that these are business questions. He does not have to develop his case but must merely ask a question of the Leader of the House and explain in two sentences why he wants a debate next week.
Mr. Simpson: Can the Foreign Secretary make a statement about a more appropriate system of supporting families who have the right to bury their deceased in this country?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Mr. Ray Powell: I do not wish to ask my usual question about the Shops (Amendment) Bill. Will the Leader of the House consider between now and the time the House returns from the Whitsun recess arranging for a statement to be made on whether the Government intend to go ahead with the Jubilee line? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of hon. Members are still without proper offices, and that the Accommodation and Works Committee spent five years devising a plan for the phase 2 development? It is still awaiting a reply and a decision from the Government regarding the Jubilee line. It is high time that the Government made a decision on that matter, in the way that they did yesterday in respect of the crossrail link.
Mr. Newton: A number of the hon. Gentleman's questions were rhetorical because he knows—given that we have attended the same meetings—that I am well aware of the points that he raised. I imagine that he heard the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the Jubilee line extension in Prime Minister's Question Time half an hour ago. Obviously, I am not in a position to add to them.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the possible consequences of the record level of national debt on the sick and poor of this country? Is he aware that many people listened carefully to the remarks of the Chief Secretary last night, which were on the record—no scaremongering? We should have a full debate to reassure the country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that the Chief Secretary's statement is a measure of the Government's mismanagement of the economy by relying too much on receipts from privatisation and neglecting manufacturing industry?
Mr. Newton: I certainly do not accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, given that his party persistently demands greater expenditure than any allocated to almost anything at any moment—with the possible exception of defence expenditure. When defence spending is reduced, the hon. Gentleman's party complains about that as well. I do not find the hon. Gentleman's remarks very credible, and I will not add to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few moments ago.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must strike a balance between business questions and the debate that is to follow. An unprecedented number of right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in that debate. Business questions have run for more than half an hour, and that is quite long enough. If right hon. and hon. Members had been speedier in putting their questions, and if the responses had been brisker, I would have been able to call more Members. We must learn lessons from that.

Adjournment (Whitsun)
Madam Speaker: I remind right hon. and hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 27 May up to nine right hon. and hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Northern Ireland Questions
4.5 pm
Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were kind enough earlier to call me on the first Northern Ireland question on the Order Paper, which I much appreciated. However, if you examine the list of Northern Ireland questions, you will see that the first Northern Ireland Member to appear in the list is myself, at question 25. My question was followed by a couple from other Northern Ireland Members. If that happened during Scottish questions, and if the first question from a Scottish Member on the Order Paper was No. 25, with the first 24 being from Members from other parts of the United Kingdom, I am sure that there would be uproar.
Is it possible for someone to take a serious look at what is happening? There is evidence of an attempt by Labour Members to pack today's Order Paper with questions. We suspect that Ministers have tried to pack the Order Paper to keep out Northern Ireland Members' questions. Can something be done about it?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House know, questions are placed on the Order Paper according to the ballot system. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly free to see that ballot system, as is every other hon. Member. If he wishes to put the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, he may do so. It is only right, however, to remind the hon. Gentleman that, despite the fact that the first question from a Northern Ireland Member was No. 25, all the members of his party who were in the House today were called to ask supplementary questions, as were the other Northern Ireland Members present in the Chamber. We must now move on.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
  [Relevant document: Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93 on Europe after Maastricht (House of Commons Paper No. 642).]
  Madam Speaker: I remind hon. Members that between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock I shall have to limit speeches to 10 minutes. I hope that all hon. Members, including Privy Councillors, who speak outside that period will limit their speeches so that as many Members as possible may be called.
  4.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A reasoned amendment has been tabled to the Third Reading and you did not say whether you had selected it. It is a useful amendment, which many people would support if there was an opportunity to vote on it.
  Madam Speaker: I am well aware of the amendment and read it carefully a couple of times this morning. I thought that it said exactly what the hon. Member wanted to say and that perhaps he did not want to be called in the debate as he had expressed himself so well. I must tell the hon. Member that I have not been able to select his amendment.
  Mr. Hurd: The House last debated the Bill as a whole almost a year ago on Second Reading and gave it a majority of 244. Since then the House has spent 204 hours of debate on the Bill. More than 600 amendments were tabled and the Committee stage took 163 hours during 23 days of detailed debate. So it would be fair to begin by congratulating those hon. Members who were most closely involved on all sides of the argument. Perhaps the House will allow me to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), for his diligence and—most of the time—for his good humour. I cannot tell, Madam Speaker, but I think that there is a sense of relief in some parts of the House that the ordeal is almost over and that, as the poet observed,
  "even the weariest river Winds somewhere safe to sea".
  I do not think that the House should be defensive about what has been a remarkable, although complicated, parliamentary endeavour. The Bill has grown from its original three clauses to eight, but without altering its central thrust. Its purpose remains to bring into United Kingdom law, where necessary, those parts of the treaty of Maastricht which give rise to Community rights and obligations.
  I will mention again those amendments which deal with the social protocol and, in his reply, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will touch on those that deal with the economic and monetary aspects of the treaty.
  382
  The House has prepared itself more thoroughly than any other Parliament of the Community for the crucial vote tonight. Tonight we shall decide whether to approve the Bill and, through it, the treaty that the Government signed at Maastricht. That decision is with Parliament, not with the Government. The Government will not ratify the treaty unless Parliament passes the necessary legislation.
  I know that there is a public perception problem. Most of the press—I shall not embroider the point, for it is a general one—have given up reporting debates in the House, although plenty of space is provided for interpretation, gossip and the odd colourful phrase. With the exception of radio, the media have chosen barely to exercise the right for which their predecessors had to fight very hard in the 18th and early 19th century—the right to report what is said and done in the House.
  That is a pity. It is a pity on this occasion, too, because the quality of debate on the Bill has been generally high. Anyone, for example, who is interested, as many people are, in establishing what subsidiarity means, or how, for example, the new arrangements under the treaty for co-operation on foreign and security policy will work out, would be hard put to it to find better discussion of those issues anywhere than the one which now appears in the pages of Hansard, on both sides of the argument.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Has it occurred to the Secretary of State that the radio and press have not reported these discussions because the public have had no role whatever to play in them? Anybody who has been to Denmark knows that the media there covered the debate extensively. The Maastricht treaty was made available, but in Britain, as the Government chose to keep the public out, there was perhaps no reason why the radio should explain what was going on.
  Mr. Hurd: We have chosen to operate—and the House of Commons endorsed this in its vote on the referendum —as a parliamentary democracy. The right hon. Gentleman has frequently and ably set out his views in theory in public, in theory within earshot of his constituents, but in practice not, for the reason that I have given. Those who struggled in the late 18th and early 19th century for the right to report the proceedings of this House would feel, I think, that that is a pity.
  In addition, we have had an excellent report on Europe from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee which analyses the implications of the treaty. The House is obliged to the Select Committee for the work that it has done—not just this time, but on earlier occasions. It has also begun to look ahead, as we all should, to the agenda for 1996.
  After this detailed scrutiny and preparation, the House stands ready to take its decision on the Bill and the treaty as a whole. The Danish people, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, voted decisively in a second referendum on Tuesday in favour of ratifying the treaty, as clarified and amplified by the agreement at Edinburgh. Despite some extraordinary forays from Britain by editors and other distinguished persons, designed to scare the pants off the Danes, the Danes refused to be scared in that way.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is it the position now that if the Danes had said no, the Government and the other countries of Europe would have ganged up against them, as my right hon. Friend so effectively threatened the Danish people?
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is doing again what he has done throughout these proceedings—for example, on the European Court of Justice. He is putting words into people's mouths which were never uttered. I would refer my hon. Friend to what I actually said and to what the Prime Minister said subsequently. If the Danes had voted no, I should have spent most of yesterday in Rome with the Danish Minister and the other Ministers of the Community deciding and setting on track, I hope with the Danes, how the 12 members of the Community should react to that event. Fortunately, however, that was not so.
  Nine of the other member states of the Community have used an exclusively parliamentary route to ratification, as we have. That is not because both they and we are, in some way, less democratic, but because that is the normal constitutional procedure for the approval of treaties in this country and in those other member states. The House considered the option of a referendum and decisively rejected it.
  I shall not go over the argument again. Like others, it was a thorough and principled debate. We decided to do the job for which we were elected rather than to pass that job back to those who sent us here.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Is he aware of a German poll, which was reported in The Guardian today, which showed that 83 per cent. of the German people wish to have a referendum on the proposed treaty on European union? How can it be said to be inimical to parliamentary democracy for this Parliament, or any other democratic Parliament, to set the question for a referendum and then to judge how the question is decided by the outcome of that referendum as expressed by the people? How is that against parliamentary principles?
  Mr. Hurd: We argued that point at length in the House. I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend took part in the debate, but his argument was strongly put. The House came to the conclusion—I am sure rightly—that many people work very hard to elect Members precisely so that we should take decisions of this kind. Therefore, the House was right to follow exactly the line that was taken by my noble Friend Lady Thatcher, when we in the Conservative party voted exactly on those grounds of principle against having a referendum on Europe in 1975.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State has said at least twice in the past few minutes that we do things differently from Common Market countries that have had referendums because we are a parliamentary democracy, in which we debate Bills differently. That has been the solid argument of the Government for refusing a referendum. Why is it that when a majority of hon. Members in this so-called parliamentary democracy decide to accept the social chapter, the Foreign Secretary says from the Dispatch Box, "I don't care how many people vote for it, we are going to ignore it"? In this tin-pot parliamentary democracy, the British people cannot have a referendum and if something is passed that the Government do not like they say, "Get stuffed."
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the House of Commons has never voted on such a proposition. The only time that it came close—
  Mr. Skinner: It was accepted.
  Mr. Hurd: We have never accepted a proposal that would include the social chapter in the treaty or impose burdens on this country. I will come to that. The only time that the House voted on the substance of the matter, it rejected the social chapter on the reasoned amendment that was proposed by the Labour party.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I want to get on, but if my hon. Friend interrupts me later I shall give way.
  I want to look at the background of the wider scene of the discussion and the decision. The negotiations leading up to the treaty were launched at a time of tremendous change in Europe. They followed the liberation of central and eastern Europe and the peaceful reunification of Germany and during the negotiations the Soviet empire collapsed. It is no secret that we would have preferred to have waited for such events to settle and for the completion of the single market before setting out on the negotiations. The treaty that resulted is a genuine attempt to strengthen the framework for European co-operation in such a way as to reflect the importance of the Community in this new Europe.
  We need to become more effective in promoting our shared interests in the world. We need to co-operate more effectively against crime and illegal immigration. We need to tackle shared environmental problems. We need to make the single market work effectively. Above all, we need, as Europeans, to tackle the main political and economic burden that is needed to buttress reform and democracy in the eastern part of the continent. The decision that we take tonight will obviously be important for us and for Europe.
  I do not think that the treaty is constitutionally more radical or innovative than the Single European Act, which the House approved in 1986. It is not the blueprint for a European super-state. Of course, there are some significant figures who continue to believe that the Community should develop into a united states of Europe. Commissioner Bangemann, for example, is always anxious to share his thoughts with us and they are constantly picked up, especially by Conservative Members. There are others who share his views.
  It does not require a shock-horror lead story on the front page of The Sunday Telegraph to reveal that the Belgian Prime Minister is a federalist. During the Maastricht negotiations the Dutch Government set out, in good faith, a centralised model for the treaty, with a single Executive and most co-operation made subject to the authority of the European Court of Justice. That model was unacceptable to us and was rejected by most of our partners. Instead, we agreed to proceed on the basis of the "pillar" structure, including intergovernmental co-operation, which is contained in the treaty and which the House has discussed for many hours.
  The treaty is not the final word in the development of the Community. There will continue to be differing views in all member states, which is perfectly healthy. We must continue to argue our case strongly. But the treaty, in contrast to its predecessors, marks an advance for our approach. Others will continue to hold views that I regard as old-fashioned—for example, that the only respectable way forward for Europe is that of steady integration and centralisation. We believe differently and the public across

  385
  Europe increasingly express a different opinion, as does the treaty. The debate will continue; we should not be dismayed by it.
  If we consider the hours of discussion in the House, we see that the Bill has been assailed by two main groups of critics.
  Mr. David Winnick: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that those who want a federal set-up—be they abroad or the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—see the treaty as the basis for creating, in a short period, a centralised, federal state of Europe modelled very much on the United States of Europe? The third stage of the treaty contains powers that provide the basis for that vision. Why is not the Foreign Secretary as honest with the House as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup?
  Mr. Hurd: We are both entirely honest in putting forward differing views on the future of Europe. Those who think in the way described by the hon. Gentleman will continue to argue their case as they are entitled to do—I have mentioned some of them by name. We shall continue to argue our case. I hope that I am making it clear that the sort of Europe for which we are arguing is theone that will exist and that will be based on the treaty that we are asking the House to enable us to ratify. The evidence to support my assertion is constantly piling up.
  Mr. Stuart Randall rose—
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the Foreign Secretary leaves the issue of the protocol and his great respect for parliamentary sovereignty, will he state whether there has ever been a time in the history of Parliament when the House of Commons has acted as it has over the protocol? It voted to show that it did not want taxpayers' money to be used for a particular purpose—to pay for the social chapter of the other 11 members—but, despite that clear vote on the protocol, the Government have said that they will use taxpayers' money for that purpose.
  Mr. Hurd: We will use taxpayers' money in the legal ways for which provision is made. My hon. Friend makes a specific point about administrative expenses. I have discussed the matter with him on the Floor of the House and in correspondence on several occasions. He certainly knows how we intend to proceed if any administrative expenses are incurred as a result of the social protocol. Clearly, we must act in line with the provisions approved by the House under different Acts.
  Mr. Randall rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as I must make some progress.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Government just ignore Parliament.
  Mr. Hurd: No. I have not ignored my hon. Friend, although he seemed to think that I was going to do so earlier.
  In the House, the Bill has been assailed by two groups of critics whose avowed objectives were incompatible, but who were prepared to make common cause from time to time to seek to damage the Government or the treaty. The Labour party has shown itself to be obsessed by just one aspect of the treaty, the social chapter. It knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not have fulfilled the mandate given to him by the House had he signed the social chapter. It knows that almost every member state has now ratified the treaty containing the social protocol which excludes the United Kingdom from the effect of the agreement of the Eleven.
  It knows that at the last election it put forward such corporatist policies, but was not elected. If it wants to pursue such policies it would be better for it to seek a mandate through the front door rather than try to smuggle in such policies through the back door. Our view remains unchanged. We believe that Britain and the Community as a whole will be better off without the damaging provisions of the social chapter. I shall briefly set out our case yet again.
  At present, in social affairs and employment law, the treaty of Rome gives the Community specific power to legislate by qualified majority vote on minimum standards of health and safety for workers. If other action is suggested in the social sphere, it has to be on the basis of unanimity. The social agreement of the Eleven would extend the use of qualified majority voting to new areas, including working conditions, informing and consulting workers, and the equal treatment of men and women. If it had been adopted for the Community as a whole, it would have provided more scope for Community action to centralise policies in which, because of the strongly differing experiences and traditions of member states, we believe that the principle of subsidiarity should apply. I have been asked several times to specify.
  We believe that a range of unwelcome legislation could be imposed on the British Parliament, including a compulsory model for worker consultation in British firms, a rigid framework for rules and conditions of employment, costly new restrictions on part-time workers, and the notion that, in sex discrimination cases, employers should in effect be considered guilty rather than innocent.
  Furthermore, the trade unions are clearly watching the provisions of the social charter, which would allow Europe-wide deals between unions and employers' groups, which may or may not be representative, and for those deals to be transformed into Community law without United Kingdom Government or parliamentary involvement. In short, we believe and argue that the provisions could place in jeopardy many of the achievements of the past 14 years in freeing our labour market from restrictions that destroy jobs.
  Mr. Mike Watson: Will the Secretary of State explain why he believes that the social chapter would be so much more damaging to this country than other member states believe it would be to their economies? Will he join me in condemning the advertisements that have recently appeared in the German press, extolling the virtues of our low wages and low national insurance contributions and encouraging German firms to invest in this country on that basis? Why

  387
  is he equating us with third-world economies? Why will not he adopt the social chapter and allow our workers to have the same rights as others so that they can compete equally with other EC member states?
  Mr. Hurd: We do not want our economy to suffer from the high costs that are causing such harm to the German economy at the moment. [Interruption.] Members of Labour's Front Bench are hopelessly out of date. If they were following the debate on the continent, they would know that the Commission, the Germans, the new French Government and many other people are concerned about European competitiveness and the high labour costs—wages plus other costs—which European employers are having to shoulder in comparison to those in the United States, Japan and Asian countries.
  Dr. John Cunningham: If that is true—if Britain offers less protection to people at work, lower standards of safety and health at work and lower wages —why have other economies done so much better than ours?
  Mr. Hurd: I would say, "Watch that space." That is not what is happening at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] We are emerging from recession more quickly than most commentators, and certainly the Opposition, expected. Part of the reason may be the fact that our labour market is organised not to put such extra burdens on employers.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), who said that we were isolated, I quote from a statement made on 3 May by Mr. Carlos Ferrer, the president of UNICE—the Union of Industrial and Employers Confederations of Furope—to Employment and Social Affairs Ministers. He set out a long series of criticisms and demands, which are summed up in the phrase that he used to the assembled Community Ministers:
  "Please stop taking measures which unnecessarily destroy jobs."
  He is not an Englishman, but the head of the European employers' organisation, and he makes our point exactly.
  Dr. Cunningham: But, in all of that, the head of the European Employers Federation never once asked the other 11 to withdraw from the social chapter.
  Mr. Hurd: The European employers have been a little slow to realise what is afoot. I strongly advise right hon. and hon. Members to read what was said. The critique here—rather belatedly put forward, I agree, but very cogently argued—is exactly what Conservative Members have constantly urged and supplies the reason why we did not join the social chapter. We are adhering to that position and will continue to do so.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: My right hon. Friend will be aware, as is the rest of the House, that we had encouraging news today about unemployment, which has now fallen for three months in succession. We are the only country in Europe in which unemployment is falling, much earlier in the economic cycle than expected. One reason for that, cited by many economists, is the flexibility that employers in this country have to hire people because they are not burdened with excessive, social regulations.
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that I am trying to make. The debate is only now really catching fire on the continent of Europe. The Opposition have not yet tuned into it, but they will have to do so fairly soon.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No. I must get on, as I promised, to amendment No. 2.
  Amendment No. 2 featured as amendment No. 27 in a previous life. I made the Government's position clear in the debate on 5 May. The effect of the amendment has been to add the social protocol to those parts of the Maastricht treaty—such as the intergovernmental pillars —that are not being incorporated into United Kingdom law because they do not need to be.
  I come now to the point of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The amendment does not—and its movers did not claim that it did—force the United Kingdom to accept the social chapter, although that was the excuse given for the efforts to delay ratification; nor does it delete the social protocol from the treaty. I will not repeat the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, but we are confident of our legal ground, which has been explained to the House on a number of occasions.
  Mr. George Robertson rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  Before I come to the critics on the Conservative Benches, I will deal with the general stance of the Labour party. It has, of course, altered constantly over the years. The Labour party has adopted as many positions as possible. In the early 1960s it opposed our membership of the Community; in the late 1960s it was in favour; in 1972 it was against; by 1974 it was in favour of someone else's taking the decision; by 1975 it was recommending a yes vote in the referendum; in 1981 it was back to opposing the Community as a capitalist plot—some hon. Members still believe that. I think that we are now in the parliamentary lifetime of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). In 1987 the Labour party was back in the pro-membership fold. In 1992, it claimed to support the Maastricht treaty—but it is a funny kind of support that we have had in the proceedings in the House. So the weathercock of the Labour party has turned and turned again.
  Now the Labour party has reached a decision on how it will vote tonight. I do not know, of course; I only know what I have read, and I may be wrong—I hope that I am. The whole House is waiting for the decision of the Opposition Front Bench. Against this background of the weathercock, will Labour Members vote yes or will they vote no? What will be the intellectual climax of all these years, these decades of reflection and debate in the Labour party? It will not disappoint us; it has now come up with something new. Tired of yes, tired of no, Labour Members will abstain.
  Some of us remember Mr. Frank Maguire, who, in 1979, for a fairly crucial vote, braved the perils of the Irish sea and came from Fermanagh and South Tyrone to abstain in person. There they are, the talent, the courage,

  389
  the massed firepower—the relatively massed firepower; all of 35 Labour Members are present—who have come here from all parts of the kingdom to abstain in person.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I hope that after all that discussion and debate, one or two Labour Members might find it in their minds to express an opinion of some kind in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has been patient and persistent. I give way to him.
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way. I assure him that at least 60 Labour Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading and I am sure that they will vote against the Maastricht treaty again tonight, primarily because it takes away from national Parliaments the power to set economic policy and hands it over to an unelected set of bankers who will impose the economic policies of price stability, deflation and high unemployment throughout the European Community.
  Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has made the transition in my speech easy. He believes that the Community is a bankers' ramp and a capitalist plot. Now I shall speak to those of my hon. Friends who are persuaded from time to time that the Community is a socialist conspiracy, or possibly even, as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has said, a communist plot. Let me move from one group of critics to another.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes rose—
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No, I want to get on. I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) many times over the years and I have already given way to him once this afternoon.
  The second group of critics are my right hon. and hon. Friends, so I should like to deal fairly and gently with the deep and genuine concerns felt by some of them. Their concerns are mainly about the existing Community, but they also fear that the treaty of Maastricht will make it worse. I believe that their fears of a lurch into a super-state are misguided. We share their concerns about aspects of Community life and ways in which the Community functions under the existing treaties. However, none of that would be cured by rejecting Maastricht—indeed, the opposite would happen. We believe Maastricht to be an improvement on the previous position. It is not a perfect treaty, but, as negotiated for this country, it will suit us well. As the continental commentators noticed at the time, it was largely settled on our terms.
  Why do I say that? Because, as a result of the treaty, there will be a strengthened basis for co-operation in foreign policy and in fighting cross-frontier crime and illegal immigration. The two big new areas of work under the Maastricht treaty—foreign policy and the Home Office subjects of law and order—will be managed between national Governments accountable to national
  390
  Parliaments. The Commission will not enjoy a monopoly of initiative and the processes will not fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court.
  In many parts of the world it makes sense for us to work together in foreign policy, because that way we are more likely to get results than if each of us goes our own way. For example, we cannot solve the different Yugoslav crises from outside and we all therefore feel frustrated and angry. However, although it has been imperfect, what good news there has been has been achieved through the process of European co-operation on foreign policy: creating a peace process and supporting the efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Vance; imposing sanctions; providing the peacekeeping monitors and the humanitarian aid, and the European troops to escort it; and helping to contain the conflict.
  That is not enough, which is why we have all continued to be frustrated and angry, but one thing is certain: the situation would have been much worse if the old states of Europe had divided, as they have done before, between client states in the Balkans. History has shown where that disintegration of European policy can lead.
  Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree how striking and noteworthy it is that the three western European applicant countries, and perhaps Norway, too, have unanimously said that their keenness to join is enhanced and augmented by the Maastricht treaty? The treaty has increased their enthusiasm.
  Mr. Hurd: Yes, that is the treaty which those countries are applying to join and I do not think that negotiations for enlargement would continue with those four countries if it were not ratified.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: May I get on a little?
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Hurd: Is it on this point?
  Mr. Marlow: Yes.
  Mr. Hurd: I give way to my hon. Friend, but after that I do not intend to give way again.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Maastricht teaty is taking us towards a halfway house on the road to a European institution that would control defence and foreign policy. Will my right hon. Friend say that the Government will not agree at a later stage to defence and foreign policy coming within the ambit of European institutions?
  Mr. Hurd: They do not. They exist as one of the pillars for co-operation. I am glad that after all the weeks of debate, my hon. Friend concedes that, because it has been much disputed by some of those who have worked with him.
  I cannot say what will happen in 1996. I argued strongly and successfully against majority voting on foreign policy. I do not wish to commit this Government to what will happen in 1996 or thereafter. I simply speak of what is in the treaty today, where this whole area is firmly in the sphere of co-operation between Governments. Our special interests and responsibilities in this field are safeguarded —basic decisions on common foreign policy and security matters are by unanimity, the treaty takes account of our

  391
  distinct position as a permanent member of the Security Council and the position of NATO is preserved as the key to Europe's defence.
  One of the most important innovations in the treaty is the principle of subsidiarity. The matter has been much debated in the House arid it lies at the heart of our view of how the Community should develop. It stems from an Anglo-German proposal. We put that case and argued it through and there it is in the treaty.
  As enshrined in article 3b of the treaty, it means that three questions must be answered before Community legislation is put forward. Can the Community act, which is the question of competence, and it can act only when the treaties allow it to act; should the Community act; and how much should the Community do? That offers us the chance to arrest the centralising, harmonising tendency of which I have spoken. Under the treaty of Maastricht, that will become a legally binding provision of the treaty of Rome. Before that, and anticipating that, we have worked, as the House knows, to create it as a political fact.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the date of the paving debate—I have just been to the Library to check—265 regulations and directives are to come before the House from the EC? Shall we be doing a favour in our quest for reduced bureaucracy and red tape to vote for or against those regulations and directives?
  Mr. Hurd: Some of them are required to put the single market into effect, while others are required for shared environmental purposes. The volume, the total, has substantially reduced because the Commission has been cutting its legislative proposals in response to subsidiarity, even before ratification of the Maastricht treaty. There are still some which we strongly object to and resist and we have our own proposals for scrapping existing legislation. That process—what I described as the political fact—is in being, even before the treaty is ratified, and we certainly want to carry it further.
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No. I have given way generously and Madam Speaker spoke of the long list of hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate; she even referred to the hon. Gentleman in that context.
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member knows that if the Foreign Secretary does not give way, he must resume his seat.
  Mr. Hurd: Thus the structure of the treaty, the concept of the pillars of inter-governmental co-operation and the concept of subsidiarity lie in prudence. There are others which I will not detail. We regard the tightening up of the definition of a number of areas of competence—the exclusion of harmonisation, the provision for the better enforcement of Community law, the increased accountability of the Commission and the confirmation of the role of the European Council—as steps forward.
  We are clear that there would be lasting damage to British interests if, with ratification completed or in sight in 11 member states we were now to destroy the treaty. British reservations would not dissolve the desire of our partners to pursue the agenda at Maastricht. They would certainly seek to move ahead in some areas without us,
  392
  while our influence on other fronts—for example, the GATT talks, enlargement and the single market—would be put on to the margins. We would still be in the Community and in the single market, but our ability to promote and defend British interests would be diminished.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I give way to my hon. Friend, but it must for the last time, as I must make progress with my speech.
  Mr. Shepherd: In all the debates to which my right hon. Friend referred—the 160 hours or more—we never returned to the first principle of democratic and accountable government. The profound rejection expressed by many people across Europe is based on their belief that it is not a democratic treaty. It contradicts government by and for the people, and so on. That is the fundamental objection. During all the hours of debate, the occupants of both Front Benches scrupulously moved aside from, and did not discuss, the issue of democratic and accountable government. This House is built on that. Why are the Government weighing more highly than democratic government the institutional arrangements that are profoundly anti-democratic?
  Mr. Hurd: It is not anti-democratic to have a structure which puts emphasis in the new spheres of work on national Ministers co-operating together and being responsible, as I am, to national parliaments. There is nothing undemocratic about that.
  There is nothing undemocratic in assessing and increasing the role of the European Parliament in monitoring the work of the Commission. So we have a Community which has both characteristics: the Community and Community institutions and the work between Governments. Both must be accountable, I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is what is in the treaty and that is what we have endlessly discussed. My hon. Friend is shutting his eyes to what is in the treaty because he wishes to haunt himself with what is not in the treaty.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is the most eloquent of all the critics on this score, that we are not sufficiently confident in the way in which we look at the Community. In recent years, British ideas have been decisive in the construction of the single market, the development of co-operation on foreign policy and against terrorism through Trevi, in reforming the CAP, in limiting Community spending, in designing association agreements with the countries of central and eastern Europe, in championing subsidiarity and in securing agreement to enlargement.
  That has been formidable progress, yet too many people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and others, still believe the Community to be in some way a conspiracy by wily and over-clever foreigners to outwit us. That is not how the rest of Europe sees it. As it happens, and without any leading from me, one European Foreign Minister told me this week that, having thought about it, he thought that 40 per cent. of the intellectual content of the Community today owed its origin to my noble Friend Lady Thatcher—[Interruption.] I know that, for more than one reason, these are perilous waters, but I am simply reporting what an intelligent observer, reflecting on subsidiarity, on the single market and on the British rebate, had to say.

  393
  In the next few years, the Community has a huge programme of work. I am thinking of GATT, enlargement and help in reforming the east of our continent. Beyond that, in 1996, there will be a further intergovernmental conference to review the treaties. The Maastricht treaty does not prejudge that review. We intend that at that conference British ideas should enrich the agenda.
  Looking to the future beyond the Maastricht treaty, we need to build a more decentralised and diverse Community, outward-looking and free-trading. We need to look again at the Community institutions—for example, to make the Commission more accountable. We need to build up further the role of national parliaments. That is acknowledged in the Maastricht treaty, but it needs to be built up further. We need to end the assumption that, outside the established areas of the core policy, all member states must automatically do everything together at the same speed. We want a debate and to achieve a consensus in this country and beyond it on that type of agenda.
  The House will look at its decision tonight in the perspective of 50 years. That is the age of the Community —it is not quite 50 years old—which is very short by any European measure. It was natural that, in its early days, the founders set themselves to struggle against the past and to assert the future of the Community in contrast to the all-powerful nation states which had brought Europe to disaster twice this century.
  It was natural that at the beginning the founders should treasure as an advance every move towards integration and every increase in the competence of the Community, as if by each such move of integration Europe was climbing rung by rung out of a pit. But now, and particularly during the past three or four years, we can see the limits of such an approach. The diversity and variety of Europe are no longer seen as anachronisms and we are no longer heading towards a union in which such diversity will be smothered or swept away.
  I quote from a recent speech of Chancellor Kohl which illustrates how his thinking has changed:
  "It is clear to me that we all need the political union of Europe but that does not mean that I shall cease to be German, John Major will cease to be British or Francois Mitterrand will cease to be French. We shall remain what we are. Our identity will remain. We are not building the United States of Europe. The statement which Churchill made here in Zurich appeals to me a lot, but unfortunately it is misleading. I have to admit that I have used it for far too long. The United States of Europe would mean that we would be like Texas or California. That is not the case. We shall remain in this Europe to a large extent nation states with our own identity and separate administrations in many areas. What we need now is a firm European roof over the old structures."
  I would not use those exact words, but they are very interesting. They show how the thinking of even as fervent a European as Chancellor Kohl has changed. The European union set out in the treaty will not be a unitary state. Nor will it be a federation on the lines of the United States, Canada, Australia or Germany.
  I have sketched—and we shall go on setting out—how we think the Community should evolve. The longer I am involved in Community meetings, the more clearly I see that what counts in the end is not the architecture or the machinery or the rulebook, but the will. I will give two examples of that in closing. We have a single European stance in the GATT negotiations, based on the absolute competence of the treaty of Rome. The Commission
  394
  negotiates on behalf of us all. That is not easy and every now and then the boat is rocked, but it is essential. No one would benefit, certainly not the business men in this country or those with whom we negotiate in the rest of the world, if the common European negotiating position in those negotiations disintegrated.
  The second example—central and eastern Europe—is different. There are huge tasks ahead and we have only just begun to grasp the difficulties. There is a huge task ahead for us Europeans, not just in economic terms, but through closer political links and in the field of security in central and eastern Europe. We have to act together on those things if we are to act successfully. The treaty of Rome provides no competence in this matter. The Commission has no monopoly. The treaty of Maastricht shows how this can be done by co-operation. It has to be done and this is not a matter that we can shirk or leave aside.
  These are two completely different European tasks and they are essentially European tasks to be achieved through quite different pieces of machinery. It is the will to agree and work together which in both instances will be decisive. Let us reduce and criticise the detail, the regulation and the small-minded acts of interference, but let us do that not in a negative way but to find again the decisive will to act together successfully in the great matters where there is a European interest and where there must be a European effort. Because the Bill enables us to play our full part in reasserting that will power, I commend it to the House.
  4.53 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I join the Foreign Secretary in paying a compliment to the House for the generally good-natured way in which a very long and arduous series of debates has been conducted.
  We all saw that the right hon. Gentleman could barely suppress a sigh of relief as he sat down at the conclusion of his speech. It is true that, as well as some serious debates, there have also been some lighter moments. We have just observed a couple during the right hon. Gentleman's speech. We can always tell when he is in trouble, because his normal silky-smooth appearance changes. He goes slightly red. The decibel knob is turned up. Words come louder and louder, but meaning goes further and further away. That is exactly what happened when he tried to defend the Government's untenable position on the social chapter this afternoon.
  The right hon. Gentleman was full of bluff and bluster about how the Labour party will or will not vote tonight. That is a bit rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who sidled away from so many votes on amendments in the last few weeks that we have lost count. He has twisted and turned, and given more explanations than the Vicar of Bray for why he was accepting this or that amendment on the social chapter, or for why he did not want a vote on the record and risk a defeat for the Government in the House.
  I do not know why on earth the Foreign Secretary began his speech by launching into an attack on the press. It has been difficult for the press, let alone members of public reading the newspapers, to understand some of the Byzantine manoeuverings of the Government. Hon. Members have even faced difficulties in obtaining votes on some of the most important aspects of the legislation. I am not surprised that that made neither graphic reading nor instant headlines for the popular press.

  395
  The right hon. Gentleman's attacks on European employers were a bit rich also. I shall remind him of what a European Conservative conference had to say about the position that he was trying so ineffectively to defend. The meeting was the conference of the European people's parties heads of government and party leaders, so I assume that either the Foreign Secretary or his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was present. [Interruption.] Perhaps they were too embarrassed to attend and in view of the content of the resolution, I am not surprised. The organisation said that it
  "Deplores the fact that the British Prime Minister and leader of British Conservative party took a negative position in Maastricht concerning European political union, particularly with regard to a common social policy."
  Even the Government's Conservative allies and colleagues in the EC not only disagree with but deplore the very action that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to justify.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: Not at the moment. I shall return to that point.
  There have been lighter moments on other occasions also. There was the performance of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State at the Foreign Office. He huffed and puffed like Tristan the Tank Engine about amendment No. 27. "Ratification, ratification! Oh dear, it will not be possible!" Stern warnings were issued to the boys and girls playing with the signals. The Maastricht express would be derailed, he warned. This little game kept him amused for months on end. It was a simple pleasure, until "Whoosh! Up pops the Oxford flyer, Douglas the Diesel." Streamlined, slick and polished, up he streaked—at least that is what The Guardian said—because he had lost his trousers. "Oh dear! A terrible shunt." "Watch the signals," bleated Tristan. "Tiresome and undesirable," said Douglas. "Let's ignore them for the sake of completeness and clairty."
  It was not the treaty or the legislation that was derailed: it was the Watford warbler. The advice that he had given and the protests that he had made were wiped out at a stroke without the apology by his right hon. Friend, who is sitting next to him today.
  There has been a lot of amusement, and there have been a lot of attempts by both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister to mislead the House. I shall come to a few examples in a moment or two.
  The Foreign Secretary and I nevertheless agree I hat the treaty represents an important series of developments for the EC. It creates new opportunities for European co-operation. The agreement on the pillars of the treaty ensures the opportunity for developing co-operation outside the Community institutions—a welcome innovation.
  The progress on European policy development and European co-operation can thus take place within the Community institutions—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—or outside them. Co-operation on common foreign and security policies and the common urgency to fight crime more effectively are issues of considerable importance which will be dealt with under the pillars of the treaty.
  Labour has already made it clear on many occasions that it broadly supports the treaty concluded at
  396
  Maastricht. We believe it is a necessary framework for the economic, social and political development of the European Community.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: So why does the right hon. Gentleman not vote for it?
  Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Lady had been listening she would have heard that I was referring to the treaty. We are debating and voting on the Bill, which is an entirely different issue.
  We believe that the treaty is a necessary framework for the economic, social and political development of the Community. A significant number of specific aspects are welcome: regional policy, the cohesion fund, majority voting on environment policy issues, public health and training for young people. The principle of subsidiarity is welcome, too, although controversy surrounds the Government's attitude towards it.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I said that I would give way and I will do so in a moment or two.
  New powers for the European Parliament are also welcome, indeed overdue, and deserve support as a necessary first step towards greater openness or transparency and more effective democratic control of the Commission and other Community institutions.
  Last year at our annual conference, Labour put forward our view on how the Community should develop —our agenda for change. I reiterate our belief that Britain's future is intimately involved with Europe and reaffirm our commitment to closer economic and political co-operation.
  In 1992, the annual conference of the Labour party decided that
  "The Maastricht treaty, while not perfect is the best arrangement that can currently be achieved".
  Mr. Cormack: If the treaty has these attributes, why has the right hon. Gentleman done everything he can to delay ratification? Why has he himself earned the criticism of his social democratic friends in Europe for the extraordinary attitude that the British Labour party has taken throughout the past year?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. First, I have never, and nor have my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench, participated in any filibustering or procrastination on the Bill. On occasions, we have actually moved and voted for closures. If we had wanted to prevent the ratification of the treaty, there were endless opportunities on which we could have voted for amendments to prevent them. The hon. Gentleman's first point is completely wrong.
  On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I defy him to produce evidence that any of my socialist or social democratic colleagues in the Party of European Socialists, of which I am vice-president, have articulated the view he ascribed to them today. I reject it and they will reject it too.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: Not for the moment. I shall give way in due course.
  Yesterday the Labour party national executive committee agreed a new policy document entitled

  397
  "Prosperity through co-operation: a new European future". That document looks at the post-Maastricht realities in social, political and economic terms.
  Mr. David Shaw: Was Dennis Skinner there?
  Dr. Cunningham: That shows how much the hon. Gentleman knows. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is no longer a member of the committee.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Can my right hon. Friend enlighten us all and, indeed, the public about the extent to which any draft of such a policy was circulated to all members of the party of which he and I have the honour to be members and which claims to be a democratic party?
  Dr. Cunningham: The document was produced by a working party. It was submitted to the joint policy committee of our party. It went from there to the new policy forum of the party and to the national executive committee and it will go to the party annual conference in the autumn. Any suggestion—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman continues, may I remind him that this is the Third Reading of the Bill. I hope we shall not go too far from that in this interesting matter.
  Dr. Cunningham: I understand what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am trying to respond to an earlier intervention. I can hardly take another one while I am dealing with this one. I understand what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was responding to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  Of course, the document recognises the shortcomings of the treaty. It sees Maastricht not as an end but as part of a developing Europe—something to improve and build on. We must look beyond the treaty to the Europe that we want to help fashion, but we do not share the Government's view of Europe. There are and remain fundamental differences between us.
  We have from the outset drawn a clear distinction between support for a developing European Community and our opposition to the Maastricht Bill which has been before the House for so many months. We could not support the Bill on Second Reading and we cannot support it tonight.
  The Government's decision to exclude Britain and the British people from the advantages of the social chapter is fundamentally unacceptable to us. We have consistently argued that the Government are wrong on this vital social policy aspect of the treaty. They are wrong because it will result in lower status and fewer rights for British people compared with their European neighbours, because it envisages Britain as a low-wage, low-skill sweatshop economy and because it sets Britain apart from, and against, the other members of the Community. As I have
  398
  said, those views have been widely endorsed by political parties, employers and leaders of Conservative parties across the Community.
  As the Foreign Secretary referred to the Federal Republic of Germany, let me remind him that when my hon. Friend for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and I met German Ministers in Bonn and spokespersons for the German employers federation I asked them, "Did it ever occur to you to ask your Government to opt out of the social chapter?" "Not for a moment," they said.
  Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the House a full account of the meeting. Could he also give us a full account of the meeting between his right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and President Mitterrand who publicly expressed his concern about why the Labour party was not supporting the treaty?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am not sure how he knows what Francois Mitterrand said to my right hon. and learned Friend. He repeatedly peddles that myth and I am sorry that I showed him the courtesy of giving way to him.
  One of the lessons that we in Britain should have learned by now about developments in the Community is that to stand back, to remain apart and to join late inevitably leads to disadvantages for our country. We lose influence and we play no part in shaping events or institutions.
  The record shows that Britain eventually signs up, but the Community has moved on. Britain is chasing the game and usually losing as a result. The Government have repeated this basic error again over the social chapter and the Maastricht process in general.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in due course.
  The political stance of the Conservative Government has everything to do with Conservative party politics and nothing to do with Britain's best interests or the well-being of the British people. Indeed, it is a betrayal of the British people.
  Mr. Budgen: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many Conservative Members wish to dissociate themselves from the allegation that the Labour party attacked the Bill. It is obvious that, throughout the proceedings, Opposition Front-Bench Members have given the most full-hearted support to the Government. All who support the Maastricht treaty should understand that they have, in a most courageous way, abandoned the traditional role of opposition and have given the Government the most slavish support that has ever been seen.
  Dr. Cunningham: That was a wonderful piece of cheek, but there was not a word of truth in it. The truth is that we have tried over many weeks and in many ways to change and amend the Bill. We have had considerable success, as is set out in this schedule, which I am showing the hon. Gentleman. As he is some distance away from me, I have coloured it so that he can see the amendments that have been made to the Bill as a result of the debates and the pressure from those on the Opposition Front Bench. There is a graphic illustration of exactly how wrong the hon. Gentleman is in his assertion.

  399
  The Labour party has ensured that the Maastricht treaty has been properly and thoroughly debated, and largely at a sensible time of the day. We have not been involved in time wasting, filibustering or obstructionism. Our objectives were to try to get for Britain the social chapter of the treaty, reverse the opt out, obtain improvements to the Bill, in line with party policy objectives, that would not render the treaty unratifiable, which was never our policy, and ensure that a complex and hugely important treaty was given the proper and detailed scrutiny that it merited.
  We have secured a vote on the social chapter, after Royal Assent but before ratification. We gained a valuable legal change, which, it is believed, may yet allow British workers to use the European Court of Justice to benefit from the social chapter. We defeated the Government's attempt to keep the new European Committee of the Regions as yet another home for their business and political friends. We passed amendments on the accountability of the Bank of England, on co-ordination of economic policies and ECOFIN, on requiring comparative assessment of the United Kingdom's economic performance and on convergence and the assessment of Government deficits.
  I do not exaggerate the importance of those gains—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, they are a long way in advance of any gains that anyone else has made as a result of this long, drawn-out process. Given that those amendments were won in spite of the Government's twists and manoeuvres and the unpredictable performance of Ministers, and their various amendments, and that the House will now have the clear opportunity to vote on the issue of the social chapter, it would be obtuse of Opposition Members to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. If we defeated the Bill, the people of Britain and Europe as a whole would be denied the treaty and the social chapter.
  I remind the House that every democratic socialist party in the Community, in or out of office, wishes to see the Maastricht treaty ratified. Every democratic socialist party in the applicant countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria wishes to see the treaty approved and has agreed to accept it as part of its application to join the Community. The citizens of all those 15 countries will enjoy the whole of the treaty. The result of the Danish referendum on Tuesday, which was warmly welcomed by the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, was organised and planned by the social democratic Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen and his colleagues. A majority yes vote in Denmark would have been inconceivable if the social chapter had been excluded from the treaty for Denmark.
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the vote in Denmark. I understand that Her Majesty's Opposition are in favour of having a referendum on the trivia of proportional representation. Why are they not in favour of having a referendum on the immensity of European union?
  Dr. Cunningham: We debated that at length in the House, but if the hon. Gentleman wants me to summarise the position, I shall do so again. We also debated that at length as a matter of policy at our annual party conference and the proposition that we should support a referendum was overwhelmingly rejected, so our party policy, like that of the Government, was that we should proceed on the
  400
  parliamentary process of ratification. What is more—I remind the hon. Gentleman for what it is worth, although I do not suppose that he will take much notice—the British people had a referendum, thanks to a Labour Government in 1976, on the issue of membership of the Community. We know what the outcome was.
  In Britain alone, the social chapter will not apply.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I am not giving way.
  In Britain alone, the social chapter will not apply, and that is why we cannot support the Bill. That is why, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the shadow Cabinet, I urge Labour Members to abstain in the vote. [Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary would not be smiling if I had urged them to vote against Third Reading.
  Some of our critics, among the Liberal Democrats as well as among those on the Conservative Benches, have argued that our position on the social chapter is a tactic, a device and that our decision to recommend abstention is aimed at exposing the deep, even vicious, divisions in the Conservative party. I am flattered to think that there are some who believe that we can bring Bill and Edwina together or that we can bring the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) back into the fold of the Prime Minister. I suspect that he has already had his "Dear John" letter from her. I do not think that there is anything that we can do, or would want to do, to overshadow those divisions.
  As The Guardian put it rather indelicately, following the Foreign Secretary's speech on 5 May:
  "Over the past six months, Her Majesty's Government has adopted more positions than are set out in the Kama Sutra. No wonder Mr. Hurd looked exhausted when he sat down."
  The Financial Times described his performance as "an ignominious climbdown". We have no reason to apologise to the Government. We have been consistent throughout this long process. All the inconsistencies have come from those sitting on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Kama Sutra is a great deal more interesting than Labour party policy documents. Given his full list of expressions of support for the treaty, would it not be sensible for him to support the Third Reading? He has also claimed credit for what was new clause 74, which concerned the principle of the social protocol, and a vote on that can come only when the Bill has become an Act. He should speed it on its way with his full support.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. Perhaps I can remind him briefly of what I have said. Were those Government manoeuvres over many months, and was our response to them, merely a tactic? Are maternity benefits, equality for women and ethnic minority communities, maximum working hours regulations, annual holiday entitlements, rights for 3 million unemployed people, health and safety at work, protection of children and adults from employment exploitation and improved social and professional integration for people with disabilities all a tactic, or are they matters of principle and importance, which are being denied to the people of this country by the Government's pig-headed obstinacy on the matter of the social chapter?
  I remind the Government of the point made in an intervention by one of my hon. Friends, that they promoted advertisements in Germany to try to persuade

  401
  German employers to contact the British consul in Düsseldorf to find out how they could invest in Britain. The advertisements proclaimed that wages were lower in Britain, and that employment protection and social charges were significantly lower than in Germany. Is that the kind of image that the hon. Gentleman thinks should be portrayed abroad? Do the Government want us to endorse a sweatshop economy? There is no way in which we would endorse that kind of approach.
  Before anyone says that the problems in the British economy were caused by the trade unions or by working people, I draw attention to the speech by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom I am glad to see in this place, as reported in The Daily Telegraph editorial yesterday. It stated:
  In a speech this week to the Tory Reform Group, Mr. Dorrell, one of the ablest young Ministers in the Government, widely tipped for Cabinet office, produced a sharp analysis of the 1980s boom, attributing it to the monetary indiscipline of the late Thatcher years. He described it as 'built on sand'".
  That is his view of the economy that his right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister were responsible for constructing. It was "built on sand", but the Government have the gall to tell us that to give protection to British people employed in the British economy is a threat to our country.
  Mr. Peter Shore: My right hon. Friend referred to matters of principle and consistency when speaking about the case, as he sees it, against a referendum. In the light of what happened yesterday, we are entitled to an explanation. After all, did not my right hon. Friend vote for a referendum in 1975 following which there was a referendum on accession to the Rome treaty? Did he not and did not my right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the party move a motion for a referendum on Welsh and Scottish devolution in February 1977, outlining the issue as being a matter of great constitutional importance on which the people had not had a chance to express their views?
  How can he reconcile the position that he took in the debate in April, in which he not only advocated opposition to a referendum but voted against one, with his obvious acceptance yesterday of the case for a referendum on a matter of far less importance, proportional representation? Where is the consistency, where is the principle and where is the democratic accountability in all that?
  Dr. Cunningham: I answered that question when we debate the referendum and I am happy to answer it again. We had a referendum about membership of the Community. My right hon. Friend knows that, and he was a member of the Cabinet at the time. He was on the losing side in that argument. He has never accepted the decision of the British people in that referendum, and there is no evidence to suggest that if there were another one he would accept the decision this time. The decision has been taken.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that if during the period of a Labour Government there was a desire to test the will of the British people about a change in the system of electing Members of Parliament, the matter should be put to the people to see whether they wanted to change from first past the post to
  402
  any other system. That would be a new and fundamental proposition, and that is why my right hon. and learned Friend proposed it.
  I was speaking about the social chapter. It is to the credit of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that he has said that it was an error to opt out of the social chapter. Of course the President of the Board of Trade takes the same view. In an article entitled "Time to get off the sidelines", in The Times in 1989, he said:
  "Our absence can only permit the self-interest of other nations. We paid a heavy price when others designed the CAP. It would be unforgivable to repeat that mistake in industrial and financial policies. The same argument applies to the social charter."
  There we have it from the President of the Board of Trade, with all his candour. However, in his Budget statement on 16 March the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "this Government will never sign the social chapter."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 170.]
  With which of his Cabinet colleagues does the Foreign Secretary agree? Does he agree with the President of the Board of Trade or with the Chancellor? Will he take this opportunity to endorse one or other of those statements? Does he back the Chancellor, and will he repeat the statement that the Government will never endorse the social chapter?
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman quoted what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in 1989. The situation has changed since then. I hold to the position that all of us on the Government Front Bench have consistently held for a long time.
  Dr. Cunningham: That is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House is entitled to know whether the Foreign Secretary supports, or will repeat, the statement by the Chancellor that the Government will never endorse the social chapter. Will the Foreign Secretary repeat that commitment'? The right hon. Gentleman has ducked it. It is quite obvious that he is not willing to endorse the Chancellor's statement.
  During the long process of ratification, one matter that has clearly emerged in this country, as in others, is that there are deep public concerns about the European Community, about recession and the Community's failure to act in the face of 17 million unemployed. There is dissatisfaction about the lack of clarity and openness in the conduct of Community business.
  People want more from the Community than just a business market. They want more democratic accountability and more policies for people. Europe is in danger of achieving the worst of all worlds, of being over-intrusive, on the one hand, while being unable or unwilling to act effectively and urgently, on the other. Sadly, the British presidency was an all-too-obvious example of the latter.
  Europe currently falls far short of the ambitious goals of article 2 of the treaty. That is why the Community must continue to change and expand. We should work positively for the admission of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria to an expanded Community. Europe needs a strategy for growth and employment. The Community can make a unique contribution to extending equality rights for women and for all members of ethnic communities. On environmental protection, the Community can be much more powerful than the sum of its separate member states.

  403
  The Bill guarantees none of those things and does not merit our support. The absence of the social chapter guarantees that.
  The Home Secretary said that he would search for consensus on development in the Community. It was an odd way to begin to search for consensus by deliberately deciding that Britain, alone in the Community, should opt out of the social chapter.
  The Government do not deserve our support tonight. Their tawdry conduct of this business and their abuse of the House have, in some instances, demeaned the House of Commons. Above all, their miserable, negative, conservative view of Europe is one that we cannot share and will not endorse. That is why we will be staying out of the Lobby tonight.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Edward Heath: Today's debate is vital, which is why it will be watched closely by the leaders of the other member states of the Community, their parliamentarians, their business men and their professions. The United. States and other countries will also be watching this debate.
  The other countries have had a year during which they did not know what Britain would do about future developments in the Community. That has undermined their confidence, their preparedness to invest and their willingness to do business with us. Tonight is the time to settle the issue. That is why those countries will be watching and listening—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: They will be watching the cup final tonight.
  Sir Edward Heath: Strangely enough, they know that the result of this debate will come after the cup final—and the last thing they want is another draw.
  As a Back Bencher, I join those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have paid tribute to the work of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State during the year that the Maastricht discussions have been taking place in this House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his consistency in what has been one of the most difficult years for any British Prime Minister since the second world war. I applaud the elegance and fluency of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the tireless patience—which most of us could not begin to emulate —-of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. We should express our gratitude to them for what they have done, because it has been invaluable.
  However, I hope that my right hon. Friends in return will spare a moment's thought for those of us who, in supporting their work, have refrained from intervening in the discussions and thereby taking up Government time. That attitude has not only helped to prevent our debates on Maastricht from being prolonged, but has prevented the disruption of the Government's other business that otherwise would have occurred. I hope that that will be acknowledged.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that we who had for so long supported the Community and its continuing development are now out of date. He said the time for Community ideals was over and that nation states would he the answer to everything. I am afraid that I
  404
  regard my right hon. Friend as the one who is out of date. Basically, he is going back to the Hague conference and saying that everything can be done through co-operation.
  The truth is that in the years after that conference the countries of Europe that had been wrecked—where people were living in holes in the ground—found that they could not get the action needed simply by saying, "We will co-operate." That is still true today and it is why the treaties of Paris and Rome were created. Those treaties require unanimity on certain matters, but majority voting on others. It is the provision for majority voting across a large area that enables action to be taken. It is essential that the Community takes the action described by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), both in dealing with this economically difficult time and in other areas.
  Let us consider the actions of the Community over the six years from 1986 to 1992. It created the single market. I willingly join my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in paying the greatest possible tribute to the intellectual capacity of our leader at the time. It is not a characteristic that I had noticed before, but I accept it. By contrast, Britain has spent six years discussing whether there should be a fast rail link to meet the channel tunnel, and we are still discussing whether there should be and, if so, where it should be.
  That is the difference between what has been happening in the Community—and it has been so since 1950—and what has been and is happening in this country. As President Mitterrand so charmingly put it, we are far behind our colleagues in the European Community.
  That is why I am so sorry that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary puts such emphasis on the word "co-operation". It needs more than co-operation if we are to get decisions in the Community. All the other Community countries and their Governments realise that and they have always accepted it. The people—not just the Governments and the politicians—of all those other countries have become very suspicious of us because we continue to say, "We will co-operate, but we must not allow further development in the Community. We must extend the Community and become wider and wider, but must say nothing about becoming deeper and deeper."
  Those people then say, "Ah, Britain wants to bring in other countries so that they can help it to break the fundamental nature of the Community." That is the heavy suspicion under which Britain suffers at the moment, and that must be put right. That is why I asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to concentrate on the other aspects of the Community described in the treaty.
  I wish that the Opposition would vote for the treaty tonight. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and one or two other Ministers are out of date in harking back to what the Labour party did in 1950 when it was in power and the Community was born, what it did in 1961, and so on. That is history, and historians will deal with it. What is important is that at last the Labour party and the trade union movement have officially accepted our membership of the Community. That is basic to our country's welfare and our position in the Community.
  I understand why the Opposition are not supporting the Bill tonight. They want to expose the grievous breaches in the ranks of the Conservative party. It is a political reason and I do not blame them for that. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the Labour party is

  405
  the only social democratic or labour party in the Community that has not voted in support of the Maastricht treaty.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being generous to my party. He has certainly been more objective than his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, the truth is that the socialist and social democratic parties in the Community have voted for the whole of the treaty. We have not been given the opportunity to do that.
  Sir Edward Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point about the social chapter and he knows full well that there will be another debate on it after the Bill is passed. Therefore, surely he should say, "We have made our point, the House can now reach a decision and we intend to show that, like other social democratic and labour opposition parties in the Community, we will support the Maastricht treaty." I wish the right hon. Gentleman had said that.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Edward Heath: I am trying to make only a brief speech.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the very fact that every socialist party in Europe supports the Maastricht treaty is cause for us to have considerable concern about it?
  Sir Edward Heath: That remark was not worthy of my hon. Friend and he knows it. I said every socialist and labour opposition party in the Community—
  Sir Peter Tapsell: The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said it was every socialist party.
  Sir Edward Heath: But I said that it was every social and labour opposition party. That is going back to the attitude of the Labour party in 1950 which said, "If we do this, it will be an entirely Conservative Community." That was nonsense, and it was rapidly proved to be nonsense.
  In the Community today we have Conservative Governments—the Germans have had a Conservative Government for years and there are other Conservative Governments—and socialist Governments. How can my hon. Friend, who has contributed so much to the House over the years, make an intervention of that kind? I am sorry.
  When it comes to the social chapter, I would ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Government to move with extreme caution. I do not accept the figures that have been given by the Government or, in particular, by the Secretary of State for Employment on the consequences of the social chapter, and nor do the majority of people in the Community. Further than that, they do not see how we can reconcile our demand that there should be a level playing field with our opting out of the majority of arrangements that affect that playing field. It is just not logically a consistent position.
  Of course, I join the right hon. Member for Copeland in deploring the British consul's advertisement in Dusseldorf. It is deplorable. I understand that it was certainly not put in with the approval of the Secretary of
  406
  State for Employment or, I doubt, with the approval of the Foreign Office or the Government. But to advertise in Germany that we can provide sweated labour, that and, the quicker workers come here the better, is unworthy of this country. I hope, therefore, that that will be made clear.
  We heard just now about Germany and its difficulties, but its difficulties are not because it created a high level of wages. We ourselves fought the election on high wages, high productivity and low cost, and that should be the objective of every economy. That is what the Germans achieved. What have their difficulties come from today? Not from what brought about their previous achievements but from the fact that they have taken responsibility for 18 million people with a standard of living on only one fifth of their own which they are determined to bring up as quickly as possible to that of western Germany. That is what has provided the problems for them.
  We can all agree—they agree themselves—that the Germans underestimated the problem. Those of us who have been across eastern Germany knew what the situation was, how appalling it was and what a major task it would be. Now they find that, because of that situation, 80 per cent. of all the investment in eastern Germany has to come from the Government because private enterprise is not prepared to try to put the situation right.
  For taking responsibility for 18 million people, the Germans deserve credit, not to be laughed at. What have we done, what have other countries done, comparable with that? We have taken 4,000 refugees, I think, and they have taken 18 million people. Who is prepared to take over Poland and say, "We will look after you and put you right"? Who is prepared to take over Bulgaria and say, "We will look after you and put you right"? Nobody. That is why we must treat what the Germans have done with great respect. Therefore, I ask the Foreign Secretary to treat the question of the social chapter with caution because we have been caught out on so many things lately.
  When it comes to the question of the political arrangements, subsidiarity and so on, the whole point of the Community is to do more and more together because in that way better results can be achieved. We should not spend all our time looking around for things on which we can say that we should have a special arrangement to contract out.
  Let us look at the things that we can make a success of. We have heard them listed today—jobs and all the other things that are required. That is where the emphasis should be. As long as we are seen to be a country that is emphasising wider and wider and more and more responsibilities, not going deeper and deeper in order to cope with them, we are suspect.
  Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend has made great play of the historical context in which the European Community has moved. Will he now take this opportunity, in what he has described as an historic debate, to repudiate that part of the White Paper that he presented to Parliament in 1970 which said that we would not give up the veto, that we would retain our essential sovereignty and that this country would never become part of a federation of provinces or countries? During the past few months he has repeatedly accused others of misleading. Will he be good enough to put the record straight by repudiating that White Paper?
  Sir Edward Heath: I shall do absolutely nothing of the sort. What the hon. Gentleman has done is to distort what other people have done before him. I heard the hon. Gentleman on television, I think that it was two nights ago, saying that the French referendum really was lost, not won, by the Government.
  Mr. Cash: I never said anything of the kind.
  Sir Edward Heath: I heard the hon. Gentleman. He said that if the French had another referendum they would lose it. Then he said that the referendum in—[HON. MEMBERS: "Denmark."]—yes, it was Denmark—was bogus because the second result was different from the first one. That does not stand examination. The Foreign Secretary made a rather critical remark about Members such as the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friends—who went across to Denmark and interfered. I wish that he would not be critical of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "What were you doing?" [I was invited by the Conservative party. I was invited by the former Prime Minister, so I went. The plain fact is —every day will confirm this—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They helped US.
  Sir Edward Heath: Of course they helped us. They helped us enormously. The speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the way in which he behaved was an enormous help to the yes campaign, and so was Lord Tebbit.
  Mr. Budgen: Why do you hate him then?
  Sir Edward Heath: Because I would much rather behave like the rest of us than like the hon. Gentleman.
  In conclusion, I want to deal with the economic side of things because I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply to the debate. Here again we have a crucial point. I should like my right hon. Friend tonight to tell the House exactly what happened over the devaluation of sterling. All the Europeans know. All the banks know. They talk to us about it and tell us what really happened. I think that the Chancellor should tell the House, quite openly and frankly, the details of what happened in that ghastly period.
  When offered a devaluation, working with other countries, it was refused, it was turned down. That may have been because just before that the Prime Minister had said that we would have the strongest currency in the Community and the best economy in the Community. I understand the Chancellor's embarrassment if he then felt that he could not accept the proposal. But all the rest know what really happened. Then, when it came to black Wednesday, we had no friends in the Community at all. That goes to the crux of the matter. If we are to be successful, we must have friends in this world today.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: With friends like that, we do not need enemies.
  Sir Edward Heath: Like what?
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Well, if we had no friends on black Wednesday, what is the point of the ERM?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here quite long enough to know that interventions that have not been accepted by the hon. Member who has the Floor are not in order.
  Sir Edward Heath: If we had had friends, we would not have been in the position in which we found ourselves. The French have not had a black Wednesday because they had friends who supported them. We have not got them. That is the plain fact.
  The Government must make friends in the Community. Every time that we say, "Now we will turn this Community into what we want," we lose friends; we do not make friends. The Government and the Foreign Secretary must realise that. Every time that we say that we will turn the Community into what we want, the others say, "We are not a colony of the British; we are a Community. We want them to help us to create the Community that we want."
  I beseech the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and members of the Government not to make commitments about the ERM. If I may say so, our friends in the Government have got enough troubles already with the commitments that they have made on which they are now having to back. As far as the country's financial arrangements are concerned, I have said before that Governments never used to commit themselves to a lowest or highest rate of taxation. They said, "We can use these as weapons in any given economic situation." That is the situation today in respect of the currency in Europe.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the single market is absolutely basic and that it was the Government's great achievement. Very well—but one cannot point to a single market in the world that has more than one currency. The United States has a single currency. There are enormous differences between the states. Who is to say that Arkansas is in the same situation as California or New York State?
  If we do not have a single currency, the single market will be chipped at the edges, and then it will crack and disappear, because the other trading countries will say, "You're cheating—and if you're cheating on your currencies, then we must cheat as well." That will destroy the single market. That must be faced, for a single currency is logical and can be brought about perfectly well in a comparatively short time.
  Every time that we say that we cannot do that—worst of all, that we cannot do it in the lifetime of this Parliament —the other member states ask, "Are you part of our Community or not?" Those are the facts of Community life with which we must deal. I support the Government's action. I am sorry that it has gone on so long. I wish them every success.
  The reason for the Northern Ireland referendum was that we closed its Parliament, so there was no other way of learning the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland. There is no Parliament for Scotland or for Wales, so the referendum was a way of testing opinion. We do have a Parliament, which has already taken a decision.
  If the House of Lords is urged to overthrow that decision, we shall have a major constitutional crisis. The House of Lords knows perfectly well that it has never taken any part in electoral arrangements or electoral law. If it is to be urged to do that now, that House will be going back nearly a century and will produce a constitutional crisis—and we can well do without that. I trust in the common sense of the House of Lords and that it will not have anything to do with motions to secure a referendum or anything like that. Having progressed the Bill quickly through the House of Lords, I hope that the Government will really put it into effect.

  409
  We are the last in the line, which is not the place that I like my country to be in. I doubt whether the House does either.
  5.52 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was, as ever, direct and consistent. He said that we need not more co-operation but more than co-operation—the capacity to make decisions—and that decisions could not be made simply on the basis of unanimity. I agree entirely. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about honesty and openness in respect of black Wednesday were salutary and we look forward to hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer's response.
  As the Foreign Secretary said, it has been a long process. Occasionally, it has been a wearisome process and certainly fraught at times. There have been moments of mystery, such as when the Attorney-General, like a high priest coming down from on high—but looking surprisingly normal, nevetheless—interpreted the holy writ of the law with unfathomable confidence. I thought that, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the Foreign Secretary was perhaps a little less confident when he offered his legal interpretation. In fact, the Foreign Secretary looked downright embarrassed. Still, both succeeded equally admirably in being unfathomable.
  Good speeches were made in all parts of the House. I may disagree with the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd), but I neither dispute nor deprecate his passionate sincerity. Nor do I cavil at the forthright consistency of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), with whom I have been locking horns for 15 to 20 years. I have never believed that a good way of persuading those with whom one disagrees is to shout at them or abuse them. That is the last thing that will succeed. Why should I cast aspersions against the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)? He has been saying the same thing for 20 years. That may mean that he is not learning very well, but he is certainly entitled to his views. I do not complain about the Euro-sceptics.
  Sometimes, good things happen to one. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has temporarily disappeared. I do not complain even about him too much, except that I wish sometimes that he would moderate his decibel level, because he is rather wearying otherwise. I compliment also the Minister of State, who has also vanished temporarily, and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—both of whom were articulate and patient throughout a long Committee stage and both of whom, I believe, are privately well ahead of their respective parties in their views on the European Community.
  I will say something about the way in which it was done, if I may use that term. We should have had a timetable at the beginning, which would have made matters much more straightforward, easier and fairer. In fact, there was a timetable, because there were closures and suspensions of the 10 o'clock rule. Labour would not play. It was not prepared to facilitate the Bill's procedural advance, so we had to do so—and we did. That was not always easy for
  410
  us, and nor was it easy for the Government. It must be very galling for a Government to rely for certain things on a minority party.
  I must say that the Government Chief Whip and the pairing Whip, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), were straight and courteous with us throughout. I say that because it is true. Nevertheless, it was odd that the Foreign Secretary made no reference to the fact that we have reached this point tonight because we did all that. The Conservative and Liberal parties were engaged in ferocious local government contests at the time in question and the Newbury by-election was held then as well. It was not easy for everybody, but it was all achieved.
  I am told that there were dungeons beneath the Government Whip's Office, in which Euro-sceptics hung from chains in dank, miserable darkness, although I never saw them. The House is always going on about how marvellous it is to have independently minded Members of Parliament who speak their minds. Sometimes when they do that, men in big boots come and try to trample them down. There is something contradictory about that.
  The main issue was the social chapter. We shared Labour's objective of manoeuvring the Government into the position where they had to choose between having the Maastricht treaty with the social chapter or no Maastricht treaty. That may yet be achieved by new clause 74. It has been a strange experience, watching an elected Parliament being denied the chance to make a decision on a issue about which it wants to make a decision. In fact, it was all very unreal.
  If one compares the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act and its social chapter, with the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, one sees that there is no profound difference between them. The Prime Minister had to return from Maastricht with some triumphs, so he said that he had saved us from creeping corporatism and creeping continental socialism.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) put his foot gently into Denmark for a moment when he made a few slightly grumpy remarks, which called forth thunderbolts of various kinds from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The right hon. Member for Henley said that all the competition from the far east would force on the other countries of the European Community the attitude that his party adopts with regard to social conditions, wages, and so on. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If pressure from the European Community is to have this effect, what is the problem about signing the social chapter? There is no problem. I do not understand that attitude.
  In one of the best speeches of the entire Committee stage, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) clearly and incisively made the point that, even if the social chapter were not signed, competition policy would result in our arriving at the same destination. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said the same thing a few moments ago. If competition is seen to be unfair, someone will certainly bring the matter to the European Court. We should certainly do so were we to find ourselves in that position.
  Then there is the question of federalism. This is another illusion. There are many mirrors here. The Prime Minister came back from Maastricht and said that this fearful word had been excised. But that does not make a dock leaf of a difference. The Foreign Secretary dredged up a quotation from a recent speech by Chancellor Helmut Kohl. Well,

  411
  Chancellor Kohl makes many speeches of some length, but they are certainly consistent. We all know perfectly well that it is nonsense to pretend that the Chancellor of Germany is not a committed federalist who believes that federalism means decentralised government.
  As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup knows better than most, it does not finish there. The next stage of the argument will be about how the show is to be run constitutionally. This will include proportional representation. I resent the attitude of those who say that PR is of no importance or significance. It is both significant and important. It is about democracy. I deny totally the idea that it is a trivial matter. In the entire European Community, together with countries in what was the European free trade area, this is the only country that does not have a fair voting system. Please let us have no more such comments about proportional representation.
  I do not intend to say much about European monetary union. I shall not spend a great deal of time on currency convergence and banks.
  Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to remarks that I made. So that there may be no misunderstanding, I should say that I am not necessarily opposed to a referendum on the future of our electoral system. I was referring to the incredible lack of proportion between those who can find it in their hearts to argue that we should have a referendum before changing our system of voting but, at the same time, would deny us a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, which is of far greater importance.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to his views, but I could hardly feel any less represented in the European Community than I feel now, and have felt for many years. Thus, the right hon. Gentleman is not entirely entitled to say what he has just said.
  On the question of European monetary union, I do not see how we can have a single market without a single currency. However, the timetable will have to be revised. I gather that Luxembourg is now the only country that meets the criteria. Changing timetables is nothing new. The European Community has operated on that basis all along. If timetables are not set, one does not do anything. If one cannot keep to a timetable, one stops the clock. But the clock cannot be stopped for ever, and after time the only way to move forward is to make another timetable.
  The Government have argued for Maastricht less on the basis of its content than on the basis of the exceptions that they managed to achieve. That is hardly a clarion call. More seriously, they simply, in effect, reject the idea of further effective democratic integration. The Foreign Secretary made that very clear. The Government believe that, somehow, it is possible to have an effective working Community with a good deal of provision in respect of the environment and in other fields—with a single market—and, simultaneously, to retain the old sovereign stale with all its powers more or less unimpaired. That cannot be done.
  This is a very important point. The Government talk about changing little things. It seems to me that what has been missing throughout recent stages of this debate is a grand design, a hope, an aim, an ideal—something to work for.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is called survival.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that it is about survival.
  What about the hon. Gentleman's party—the Labour party? No doubt it, too, is interested in survival. The Labour party's spokesman explained at some length why he would not vote for the Third Reading. I did not find his argument very compelling. What sort of leadership is that? I read the magazine of the House of Commons occasionally. The other day I read in that publication an article by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who may have written it in the hope that nobody would read it—we all do that sort of thing. He said that we must have a single currency and a central bank. He has not made that point very loudly in the Chamber.
  What do Liberal Democrats want? We believe that a single market is good, but that it cannot work without a single currency, an agreed social policy and common rules on competition and regional regeneration. Only in that way is it possible to achieve growth and employment. We believe that a coherent community needs a common foreign and defence policy to solve internal problems and achieve external influence—internal problems like Yugoslavia; external influence with the United States and Japan.
  We believe in a strengthened European Parliament, fairly elected, at the democratic heart of the Community. It must certainly relate to the Council of Ministers, as that is the nature of a federal approach, but it must act openly. We are supranationalists, whereas the Government are intergovernmentalists. That is a basic difference, and the argument will be rehearsed again and again over the coming months and years.
  The Maastricht treaty refers to the role that transnational political parties will increasingly play. That is the way forward for Brits and Germans and Dutch and Danes. They will not be in any way ashamed—indeed, they will be particularly proud—of their distinctive cultures, languages and history, but they will co-operate in respect of economic, political and social matters across national divides. In determining these issues, national divides are not the central concern. We want the common good in Europe, and that is what we shall continue to work for.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who made a powerful and compelling speech. I have slightly less confidence in the effectiveness of the 204 hours and 23 days of debate than was demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
  I was not here for all the debates, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was here for quite a few of them, and when I look back on them I wonder precisely what we have achieved. True, we have turned a Bill that was one and a quarter pages long into a Bill that is one and a half pages long. I have to be careful in saying this, because I know how much this House treasures its privileges and its place as the mother of Parliaments and the mother of democracy, but one reason why so many people in Britain

  413
  became so determined and anxious to have a referendum was, I believe, because they thought that we were wasting a great deal of time on trivia.
  There were times when the legal significance of our debates seemed to be totally incomprehensible to many of those outside the House. That is why the cry for a referendum, which I do not agree with, was magnified. That is the lesson that we have to remember, if this Parliament is to be convincing in future debates of such enormous constitutional importance.
  If we are to convince the outside world that our debates are of great significance, it is important that we do not waste time—by, for example, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) spying strangers at 3 o'clock in the middle of the night and leading between 450 and 500 grown-up men and women back into the Chamber on a farcical excuse. How can one mention that sort of incident to politicians and friends on the continent and then pretend that we in this House are treating the Maastricht treaty with all seriousness? When behaviour of that kind is reported, it seems like a farce.
  I hope that one of the benefits of this long debate is that we reform our procedures by the time of the next intergovernmental conference so that the mother of Parliaments, this Westminster Parliament that we all love so much, regains respect. When we have the son of Maastricht treaty, which is only four years away, I hope that we shall debate it fully in a two or three-day debate and that at the end of that debate we, like the French or the Spanish, will come to a firm conclusion and decide whether to ratify the treaty, or otherwise.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the great issues are now unfolding before us as a result of the Maastricht treaty and the Bill that we are to ratify, I hope by a very large majority, tonight. The first of those great issues is the exchange rate mechanism. That question will not go away. What we have to consider, and what I am sure my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench must consider, is how we are to reform, with our continental friends, the processes of the exchange rate mechanism so that we, and the Italians, can join it again.
  According to the treaty, on 1 January 1994, a mere seven months away, stage 2 of the process towards economic and monetary union starts. Under stage 2, we are committed to moving the Bank of England to independence from political control. One has only to read article 109e, paragraph 5, to see that. I hope that we shall take that course early on. When I look at countries with independent central banks—notably the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany—I see, despite the hiccups in Germany at present, that those countries have shown over decades consistently higher rates of growth since 1945 than we have.
  One conclusion must be that bankers, not politicians, are better at deciding questions of monetary growth and consequential interest rates. It is not necessarily that they have better brains than we have, but they do not have to operate within the same electoral four-year-cycle as we do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—made a key intervention and, with his typical trenchancy, said that the important thing now is to have a more democratic Europe, with proper controls over
  414
  what is done in Brussels and Strasbourg. I am convinced that the way that we shall achieve a more democratic Europe is by a deeper examination of the powers of the European Parliament.
  Next year, the European Parliament holds its elections. We, surely, have to be ready with our decisions and our thoughts about the increase in the powers of that Parliament in good time for the 1996 intergovernmental conference. So many times in the past few months I have heard, as many other hon. Members must have heard, the comment, "I believe in Europe, but I don't like the Maastricht treaty. Despite subsidiarity, if I understand what that means, the treaty adds to the scope of and provides the Commission with too many new powers." Even those of us who believe strongly in Europe cannot arrogantly brush away that criticism.
  So what is the answer? It must lie in more democracy within a powerful Community for the European Parliament and greater accountability and openness in the Council of Ministers. That is one of the problems for this Parliament of ours at Westminster. We have never really come to accept the European Parliament. We have to learn not only to live with it but to realise that it is not just a talking shop. It must become, and we must help it to become, a more effective brake on the Commission and, at times, on the Council of Ministers.
  Inevitably, that will mean more power and control moving from his House, not to the Commission—that is the Whitehall, the civil service of the Community—but to the European Parliament. I realise that that is a difficult concept for hon. Members to accept. I accept it. Our task, after ratification of this treaty, over the next three years is to examine how that can effectively be done. What are we to give to the European Parliament? Are we to give more power to investigate the management committees? Are we to give it First, Second and Third Reading powers over all new policy areas where there is majority voting in the Council of Ministers? These issues will have to be examined. What we cannot do is to demand more democracy within the Community and yet not seriously consider the question of how to make the European Parliament work more effectively.
  We must certainly also consider the role of the Council of Ministers. How can we help it to act more visibly, more transparently, so that what the Council of Ministers does can be seen by the constituents of the member states of the Community? I realise that the Danes have tried that. They held a few open or televised sessions of the Council of Ministers. It did not work too well, but that is no reason for giving up the experiment. The thoughts and conclusions of the Council of Ministers must be seen to be openly and freely available to their European constituents.
  Slowly, therefore, we in this House have to come to terms, while we look for more democracy, with the fact that we are part of the continent of Europe. Let me remind the House, before I sit down, of the famous words of John Donne:
  "No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less".
  Britain, we all know, will always be an island, but reluctantly we have to accept that in the 21st century we shall inevitably and inextricably be part of the European continent as well. Our job in this House is to merge those two ideals—insularity and European statehood.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I am conscious of being the first Member to speak in this Third Reading debate who hopes that the Bill will be negatived. Hon. Members have spoken well, but regardless of what side of the House they have spoken from they have all seemed to send out the same message.
  The reality is that, in this year-long debate, we have witnessed the unspoken alliance of the leaders of all three political parties and their joint determination to ratify the Maastricht treaty. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have made their points about the social chapter, but, as we shall see later, they are quite willing to accept the Maastricht treaty even though it does not contain a social chapter.
  It was interesting to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) defending himself against accusations of Labour-wrecking, as it were, and saying that the Labour party could have destroyed the Maastricht treaty on many occasions if it had wanted to. My God, I wish that he had wished to do just that. If he had, he would have earned the thanks of a large proportion of the British people—including, I am glad to say, as he will soon find out, the great majority of ordinary Labour party members, supporters and trade unionists.
  Dr. John Cunningham: The reason why we did not want to do that is quite simple: it was not the policy decision that was taken by our conference, which my right hon. Friend refuses to accept.
  Mr. Shore: I have never taken the view that, on matters of major constitutional and political importance, my decision about how I should vote in the best interests of my constituents, my party and my country should be dictated by a majority vote at our annual conference—never. That is the doctrine to which I hope every member of the Labour party would subscribe. We take note, we take seriously and we consider what our annual conference has to say, which is fair, but to use it as the authority for refusing to act in the interests of the country and of our constituents is absolutely repugnant.
  It is exactly a year since the Second Reading debate. It has been an interesting and important year. Taking full account of the last Danish referendum—I do not think that there will be a third one, but perhaps the best of three might be the way of deciding it—I wish to say how profoundly grateful I am to those sturdy people in Denmark who value self-government and independence in their own country to the point where they turned over their own political establishment and voted no. Their referendum of 2 June gave people, not only in Britain but all over Europe, the chance to think again and to look far more searchingly into what their political leaders had committed them to.
  As we all know, what emerged across Europe was the recognition that there was indeed a classe politique—the professional Europeans, the professional politicians who were dedicated to the European idea and ever closer European union. For example, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is now an open federalist.
  There are disguised federalists, too, many of whom feel that it is imprudent to state too early what the real objective is. For example, the Foreign Secretary denies what is on the face of the treaty and does not recommend
  416
  to the House what everyone else in Europe thinks it contains but says that Britain has not gone along with certain things and how remarkably successful the Government have been in negotiation. I think that they have had some successes in negotiation. They have not signed up for stage 3 of European monetary union. I should have thought that that was a matter of congratulation, but I find that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen want stage 3 of EMU as well; they are not content with what they are getting.
  It is especially on the economic side that the gravest damage is to be done—not only to our economic interest and the British people but to the people of Europe as well. I shall devote most of my remarks to that matter, but let no one have any doubt that my feelings are equally strong about the transfer of powers, the loss of self-confidence and the willingness of Members of Parliament, in this of all Parliaments, to hand over the powers of their constituents and their country to alien institutions abroad and to abide by the decisions that are made there.
  Let me deal with the economic issues, which greatly disturb me. Last year, 16·2 million people were unemployed throughout the Community—about 9·3 per cent.—but today the figure is 17·5 million, or more than 10 per cent. According to a Commission report, the outlook for growth in the European economy in 1993 is 0·7 per cent., which, as the House will well know, is quite insufficient to sustain the present level of employment. Productivity in the European Community is currently growing by roughly 2·5 per cent., but unemployment will increase next year because it is forecast that production will grow by only 0·7 per cent. In addition, the more recent forecast of the International Monetary Fund expects growth within the European Community to be 0·1 per cent. this year.
  The recession is biting deep. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave figures for Germany and other European countries, knows only too well how industrial production has collapsed in many countries. The European Community faces a very serious problem. Everyone, especially those who are feeling the burdens of recession, is saying, "We are trapped. We want to do something. Why cannot we have programmes and policies to expand the economy and combat rising unemployment?" We all know the reason why. No European Community country can set interest rates lower than the Bundesbank's base rate, which is just under 8 per cent. Interest rates in other member states must therefore not be lower than 8 per cent.
  Japan and America, which are not as badly afflicted as Europe, are worried about recession. What are their interest rates? Are they 8 per cent.? Not a bit of it. Both have rates which are less than 3·5 per cent. That is part of the difference. Why cannot European countries lower their interest rates and enormously boost growth, employment and so on? Because they are stuck in the exchange rate mechanism, and the treaty tries to keep them in it. Only the markets, operating in the most tumultuous way, can change their treaty obligation to maintain exchange rates in the fixed parity. It is quite crazy.
  The only country, as the Chancellor well knows, that has partially escaped and whose growth prospect this year is better than 0·1 per cent. is Britain. Our growth prospect is 1·6 per cent. That is nothing to cheer about, but it is all right compared with the rest; and we have the lowest interest rates in the European Community. Ours are lower

  417
  than Germany's, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) did not believe was possible. I well remember asking him in earlier debates, "What is the use of having sovereignty in the sense of control over interest rates and exchange rates? It means 25 minutes of freedom before adjusting to fall into line with the Germans"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  6.29 pm
  Sir Cranley Onslow: I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, for which I firmly intend to vote. I hope that the House will not forget that—as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said—the treaty was not of Britain's seeking. Of course we could not turn our backs on what had happened at Maastricht, but it was inevitable that the Prime Minister was faced with a damage limitation exercise, and he and his colleagues in the Government deserve our thanks for the skill and persistence with which they have conducted it. The same cannot be said of the Bill's opponents, from whichever party. Conservative opponents of the Bill will receive no thanks from me today.
  I am not prepared to go as far as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but it will be a long time before some of us forget the disgraceful sight of corridor conspiracies being conducted with the Opposition Chief Whip aimed solely at frustrating the business of the Government whom the hon. Members involved were elected to support. I can understand that hon. Members may be slow to forgive colleagues who sloped into the Opposition Lobby, then sought to blame the Government for spending so much time on the Bill. I must say in his absence that it surprises me that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) still seems to be regarded by the press as the true voice of the loyal right.
  However, those are side considerations. The rebels have marginalised themselves and will find themselves in curious company in the Lobby tonight. But that is their affair and need not worry the House as a whole—it is more important to look forward. Much has happened since the first day of Maastricht. There have been significant changes in Europe and we need a few agenda. I am delighted to have had the Prime Minister's testimony that rejoining the exchange rate mechanism is not on the agenda for Britain. I warmly welcome the statement that he made yesterday on the BBC when he said that the conditions for considering re-entry—let alone re-entry itself—do not currently apply. I believe that they are unlikely to do so for a long time.
  The enlargement of the Community must be a high priority, and I have no doubt that the Government will press actively for that. I am also sure that we can rely on my right hon. Friends to press on with their campaign against the over-regulation that the Community has inflicted on us and which our own bureaucrats have so often succeeded in compounding. We must finish spring cleaning the nooks and crannies that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary identified a while ago.
  Just as we must ensure that unnecessary rules and regulations go, so we must ensure that all our partners
  418
  comply with necessary rules. The latest report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry highlighted sectors in which Government action is still needed to secure fair competition, eliminate illegal state aids and ensure a level playing field. I hope that that task is high on Whitehall's agenda.
  Whatever the agenda, hon. Members must never forget that they have been chosen to represent Britain's interests. Our purpose in seeking to be at the heart of Europe is not to try to dominate Europe, as France and others have always feared that Germany would. It is right to seek to make the most of our own skills and strengths, which is why it is vital that we should not allow ourselves to be shackled by the social chapter.
  At a time when our industrial costs are lower than those of Germany, why does the Labour party want us to throw away that advantage? Does it believe that to do so would strengthen our economy or create more jobs? We can only prepare ourselves to face the mounting competition from outside Europe if we are strong enough to compete inside Europe. I can illustrate how intense world competition is likely to become. Last week I heard of a firm in Germany that has decided to relocate its research facility in India because the top rate for a computer programmer in Bangalore is one tenth of that in Berlin. Against such a background, we must identify the fierce competition that we are about to face.
  Another major change since the Maastricht process began is the recession that the Germans have entered. I expect that, being Germans, they will have a good—or, should I say, thorough—recession. France is threatened by the same sort of force, although, under its new Government, it has a better chance of surviving it. Those factors show why we have every reason to reject the millstone of the social chapter.
  My hon. Friends and others who seem to fear that the treaty will lead to outright political union in an inevitable super-state in Europe should not forget the lesson of Bosnia. What is happening in the former Yugoslavia poses a potential threat to peace in the whole of Europe, and we must not ignore it. But simply because Britain is fortunate enough to have the best Army in Europe, it must not allow itself to be cast in the role of Europe's policeman. We must sometimes work with others, but we must not surrender sovereignty over our armed forces or the rights of the House. I am sure that the Government recognise that.
  Bosnia can only provide a damage limitation exercise for Europe, just as Maastricht has been for Britain. If we are sensible enough to see things as they are, we shall realise that there is still a great deal that we can achieve to build the sort of Europe that we want. Tonight's vote is a necessary step towards that goal.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: Tonight's vote on Third Reading will have a pre-set majority. But not one hon. Member has the legal or moral authority to hand over the powers that they borrowed from their electors last April to people who will not be accountable to those whom we now represent. Not one of us put the Maastricht treaty before the electorate last year, because it was not then published in English. We offered them no choice—the Labour party, without any conference authority, decided to support the treaty. I know that the Labour party had no authority,

  419
  because the Maastricht treaty was negotiated after the conference, which intervened before the manifesto was written.
  The problem for those who are passionate about Europe is that they cannot offer this country to Europe. Only half the seats in the Chamber are occupied for tonight's debate and the Opposition intend to abstain in the vote. If I were a passionate federalist—which I am not —I would feel more concerned about tonight's vote than anyone else. If others in Europe say that 'we have supported them, it is not true. The House of Commons, under the Whips, the patronage, the discipline and the disillusionment, has supported them, but not the British people.
  A democracy consists not merely of a mechanism of becoming elected and passing a law. It contains the responsibility of gaining the continued consent of the electorate. At the next election I shall have to say to the people of Chesterfield, "Vote for me and I shall fight for you, but do not vote for me to deal with your agricultural, environmental, trade or even foreign policy, and certainly not your economic policy." We are handing over the British people, without their consent, to a system that has replaced parliamentary democracy, which we have been told is the justification for what we are doing tonight.
  Would the House have been entitled to take Britain into the United States of America, join the Warsaw pact or invite in Soviet troops without a referendum? Of course not—nobody would believe that for a minute. We have experienced a coup d'etat by a parliamentary elite, not only in this country, but in the whole of Europe. They have abandoned their tasks as representatives and become the managers of Europe.
  Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I should love to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have an argument that I want to advance and I have only 10 minutes in which to do so.
  The House has given up its power, because it has lost interest in its role. I do not think that the House of Commons wants power any more; it has traded status for power. Hon. Members now get on the television and are introduced as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield or whatever, but they do not want power. For them, status is much more important.
  The Labour party has adopted a completely new philosophy—that of being in government when not in government. We now have shadow Ministers—the French call them "phantomes", which is appropriate. I heard that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) went to Paris and Le Monde called him le secretaire d'etranger phantome de Britannique. I can imagine people placing entries in "Who's Who" such as "Phantom Prime Minister 1983–1992". We shall have a phantom queen next, who will call for Buckingham palace to be open for two or three months a year at £9·50 a tour.
  We have abandoned our representative role, and the same is happening in every country. It is that crisis that lends support to a Ross Perot and Le Pen. As Members of Parliament, we do not represent people; we hope to manage them. If we cannot manage them, we pretend that, if we were to manage them, we would do it better than the Conservative party.
  During the election, the Chancellor appeared on a Labour poster as Batman. I thought that it was a Tory
  420
  poster, trying to make him more attractive to younger voters. What is the point of abuse when there are matters of substance to discuss, such as how to solve unemployment, what sort of Europe we should have and what new world order? We have abandoned all those issues.
  I must not be controversial—that is not my practice —but my party, in supporting the Maastricht treaty, has abandoned everything for which the party was established. Others may take a contrary view. The Labour party believed that people had the right through the ballot box to control those who made the laws and, by getting a majority, to change the economic system under which they lived. However, the party has now given it all up. I am not saying that it has done so out of wickedness; it was out of a lack of self-confidence.
  I do not think that members of Labour's Front Bench would have even two ideas about what to do with the economy if they came to power, other than with a central bank. I say this with some regret, but a series of sound bites glued together and called an economic policy is not an economic policy. That is the problem—[Interruption.] I am sorry to speak sharply, but, if this is my last speech in a free Parliament, I had better say what I think and take the consequences.
  I bitterly resent the title "Euro-sceptic". Am I an "Anglo-sceptic" because I did not like the Thatcher Government? I oppose the Maastricht treaty as a European because it takes from every country in Europe the rights that are being taken away from us. It does not offer durability. The treaty has divided every country in Europe—Denmark went one way and then the other, France agreed by a narrow margin and Ireland by a bit more, but in Britain the people are not allowed to vote.
  Let no one tell me that proportional representation to put people in an impotent Parliament within a European federation merits a referendum. That is an utterly disreputable argument, and no one will believe it. Labour does not want to have to put to the Labour movement and the public the arguments for the Maastricht treaty and European union, because it knows that those notions would not win support.
  A moment ago, someone said that 83 per cent. of the people in Germany want a referendum and two thirds wish that the Danes had voted no. The treaty will fail; that is the tragedy. I shall get no satisfaction from its failure, but it will fail because it cannot be made to work. When it fails, a Bosnian-type crisis will emerge, because one can no more impose capitalism from Brussels than communism from Moscow. It cannot be done—you must carry people with you.
  That is why I suggested a commonwealth of Europe, a looser arrangement where harmonisation is by consent. I believe that the crisis in the former Yugoslavia would be much less serious if we had a commonwealth of Europe in which it could find a place without having in place of the iron curtain a gold curtain or a deutschmark curtain, which means that, if one cannot fit in with the policies, one is not acceptable.
  I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking with passion. I have often wondered whether, when we lost democracy in Britain, it would be to the red army, the Militant Tendency or Oswald Mosley, but in fact we ourselves have given it up. The House has agreed to abandon its responsibility to hold to account those who make our laws. We have given it all up. Walter Bagehot

  421
  said in the 19th century that the British constitution was divided between the dignified and the efficient. He said that the Queen was the dignified and that the Commons was the efficient. The Executive is now the efficient, and we are the dignified.
  We no longer want power. We do not care whether it goes. The nation accepts that because, after centuries of subservience to a monarch whom we cannot elect or remove, we are trained to be subservient. If we learned to live with William the Conqueror, we can learn to live with Jacques Delors. People have been trained—there is a culture of bowing and scraping, going to another place with my Lord this or my Lord that. The nation has never been allowed to develop the equality that comes with birth, to govern oneself as one thinks right and then to collaborate, harmonise and co-operate with other nations.
  The idea of one country living alone is absurd. We could be killed by a Chernobyl nuclear disaster or destroyed by a nuclear weapon from China. There is no national sovereignty, but there is a right to choose and remove the people who make our laws. When we vote tonight, under the discipline of the Whips and the patronage system, which is also a corrupting influence, the House will abandon that which makes it a focus of interest and attention for generations of people, from the chartists and the suffragettes until now.
  In 1970, we permitted the vote at 18. The meaning of the vote was taken away on 1 January 1973. There were two and a half years of the right of the electorate, but it was too dramatic a power and the Government, without a referendum, took it away. I regret the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends now hope that they will get more justice from Jacques Delors than from the Government. It is not a policy which any progressive party could pursue.
  6.44 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: We have spent more than 200 hours in Committee, mainly debating legal interpretations of the treaty. I shall refer to some of the economic issues and especially to what one might call the intelligent Garrick club member arguments. Those arguments are as follows: first, that Britain belongs to the weakest of the three major trading groups in the world, secondly, that during phase 2, all countries will be required to reduce their deficits to specified levels and there will be determined effort to implement the single currency; and, thirdly, that we shall transfer economic policy from elected Parliaments to non-elected institutions and that the European central bank is insulated from democracy. It was because of that authoritarian power that Charles I lost his head.
  On the first point, we need not doubt that economic growth is faster in the far east and likely to be faster for some time in the United States. I do not know whether we are supposed to try to become a member of the American free trade area or its equivalent in the far east, but such a suggestion would be as absurd as it is impractical. We do not need to weaken ourselves by leaving the European Community in order to invest in the United States or the far east, which we already do rather more than any other European country.
  We must have the resources to invest in the rapidly growing parts of the world, which means that we cannot
  422
  afford to weaken ourselves. I fear that that would happen if we failed to ratify the treaty. We have attracted huge amounts of inward investment in recent years, especially from the United States and Japan, and only because we are full members of the European Community. We have attracted some £2,000 million from the Japanese alone, who have employed 70,000 extra people. As a result, we expect our balance of trade in motor vehicles to be in credit within two years and to double car production within the next five years.
  As the House will know, a survey was recently carried out for the Confederation of British Industry by an economic research institution. It showed that, if we did not ratify Maastricht, about 47 per cent. of American and Japanese major investors would cease to invest in this country. That is real evidence rather than a matter of legal interpretation, which has been bandied around the House in recent weeks.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Peter Hordern: No, I shall not give way, because, as my hon. Friend knows, time is limited.
  Sixty per cent. of our trade is with the European Community. We need a strong home base, which the Community provides, to increase our investment in the United States and the far east. We also need to bring down the tariffs and to make a success of the GATT round. I cannot see how we can make a success of it unless we are a full member of the European Community, negotiating with fellow member countries to bring down the tariffs all over the world and, in particular, in the United States. We can influence the negotiations only from within the European Community.
  The second proposition is that, during phase 2, all countries will be required to reduce their deficit to specified levels. I do not think that there is any truth in that. Indeed, the treaty states that, in phase 2, we must
  "endeavour to reduce excessive deficits"—
  a praiseworthy and commendable thing to do.
  As for deficits, the House knows that all European countries, with the possible exception of Luxembourg, are way outside those limits. Belgium—which I suppose is the keenest federalist of all—has a financial deficit of 6·7 per cent. and a debt of 130 per cent. of GDP rather than 60 per cent. Italy has a financial deficit of 10·5 per cent. and growing, and a debt of 105 per cent. The Netherlands—another very federalist country—has a debt of 80 per cent.
  Are we seriously to believe that in the next two years those deficits will be reduced by half? Is it seriously to be considered that those countries will cut their public spending by half in the next two to three years, or double their taxation? It is a ludicrous idea. Only an academic, lost in an ivory tower, would believe any such thing. We do not believe in signing up to such an arrangement and hence, very sensibly, my right hon. and hon. Friends have secured the opt-out from that arrangement.
  I think that we ought to consider why these convergence factors are in the treaty at all. It is likely that the Bundesbank, the German people and the German Parliament—all of whom have to ratify the single currency and will have the final say—are not happy to abandon the deutschmark. It is quite understandable that, if they are to accept the single European currency, they will demand at least as stringent conditions as are currently applied to the deutschmark. I think they are right to do so. If there were ever to be a single currency, the conditions set out in the

  423
  treaty would be sensible; but it is simply not going to happen, because the terms and conditions in the treaty cannot conceivably be met.
  The proposition is that the European central bank would be somehow insulated from democracy, and that never in the course of our long island history have we ever been called upon to sacrifice our sovereignty in this way. That is absolute nonsense. Ever since we were on the gold standard, from 1660 onwards—and again under Peel's Bullion Act of 1819—more often than not we have been tied to the gold standard or some other fixed currency. In more recent times, under the Bretton Woods agreement, we were completely fixed to the United States dollar for 22 years, and in that time our monetary policy was conducted not within the Bank of England but by the Federal Reserve of the United States.
  If, by any chance, hon. Members should say that that was a deplorable time, I would mention the fact that interest rates were commonly about 3·5 or 4 per cent. at that time, inflation was about 3 per cent. and unemployment about 500,000. Those were halcyon days. I do not see any difficulty, in practice, in our tying ourselves to another currency.
  As many of my right hon. and hon. Friends know, for some time I have favoured an independent Bank of England. Many opponents of the Maastricht treaty would like to blame our membership of the ERM for the recession. I say to them that it is worth remembering that, before we joined the ERM, interest rates had been at 15 per cent. for a whole year and at about 14 per cent. for a year before that, and that inflation was at 12 per cent. That was the position before we joined the ERM. We did not join it because of any great enthusiasm of Baroness Thatcher for the European Community; we joined it as a way of dealing with inflation. In that respect at least, it was extremely successful; it brought inflation down from 12 to 5 per cent., and interest rates fell from 15 to 10 per cent.
  Of course. it can now be argued in retrospect that we ought to have joined the ERM sooner—I believe that we should have done—and that it might have been very much better if we had devalued the currency within the ERM. There is no case to be made for a floating currency without any regard to other currencies. If we float our currency, it invariably floats downwards, and up goes inflation. That is the record of the last 20 years: there is no denying it. It is not surprising that foreign holders of sterling—to whom we are extremely indebted at the moment, having to borrow some $50 billion—demand a very high price for it, as they will if they think there is any doubt about the level of sterling.
  Whether in currency or in trade matters—as in defence or foreign affairs—we cannot act as an island alone. Whether in the GATT negotiations on the negotiations for an enlarged Community—which I think we all wish to see—we need to be at the heart of Europe to help steer it in the right direction, and that is why I am in favour of ratifying the treaty.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: The positive and decisive result of the Danish referendum—which I welcome—has without doubt radically improved the prospects for ratification of the Maastricht treaty. The truth is that the Danish no last June threw the whole EC into turmoil; another Danish no on Tuesday would
  424
  certainly have derailed Maastricht and the Bill, even if 10 or possibly even 11 of the 12 member states had joined forces to cobble together a replacement treaty. Thanks to Danish second thoughts, however, Maastricht has survived.
  I remain convinced that the Maastricht treaty provides a valuable, indeed essential, framework for the economic, social and political co-operation and integration of the 12 EC countries. Like the Labour party conference, I support the treaty and believe that it should be ratified as soon as possible.
  I strongly agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that the Conservative Government have grossly mishandled the passage of the Bill. It was the Prime Minister himself who specifically linked British progress on the Bill with events in Denmark —first by delaying the Committee stage, and then by saying that Third Reading would not take place until after the Danish referendum. More fundamentally, it was the Government who stifled the emergence of the natural pro-Maastricht majority in the House—thus slowing the Bill's passage—by insisting on the retention of the social chapter opt-out which was negotiated at Maastricht, mainly for internal party-political reasons.
  In fact—as was made clear when the Foreign Secretary read out parts of the social chapter—it is a very mild document, which should have caused no alarm to Conservative Members. Everyone knows that, if the Government had been prepared to accept the social chapter, we would have been able to ratify the treaty long ago.
  As my hon. Friends have said, the Bill is still incomplete, because it does not contain the social chapter. Even so, I shall be obliged to resist the advice of my right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain in the vote tonight—although that advice was couched in the gentle and attractive guise of a one-line Whip. As you probably know. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not a natural rebel. I was encouraged to abstain on Second Reading, and I did so; I was encouraged to support my party in the paving debate, and I did so—although I was given some stick by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats for abandoning my European principles. On those occasions, however, I had good reasons. At the time of Second Reading, the Bill did not contain the social chapter; and, in my view, the vote on the paving debate constituted a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister and his Government. On this occasion, however, I shall vote in favour of Third Reading.
  Of course, I understand the position of those on the Front Bench. Abstention maximises Labour party unity and helps to exploit divisions in the Tory party. It also underlines the fact that the Bill still does not contain the social chapter. However, unusually for politicians, my Front-Bench colleagues are underestimating and underselling their own achievements in Committee and on Report.
  I am not referring to the fact that five out of eight clauses in the Bill are actually Labour amendments, or to the fact that some useful gains have been made with regard to the composition of the Committee of the Regions and economic and institutional accountability. Their most crucial achievement was on the social chapter. The opt-out has always had an uncertain legal and political basis, as any Minister will admit in private. It has always been inherently improbable that two social regimes should

  425
  continue to exist side by side, one for 11 members and the other for the 12th member. The acceptance of amendment No. 2 on Report made it even more unlikely.
  When, after ratification, British trade unionists or French, German or Danish business men challenge the social chapter opt-out in the European Court, as they will, the British Government will not now be able to argue that the social protocol, or rather, the British opt-out from it, is part of British law.
  What is more, the Government have accepted that the Act will come into force only after a vote on the social opt-out. That was a victory for the Labour party, which I believe it has not made enough of. But we shall have a vote on the social protocol and the British opt-out only if the Bill is given a Third Reading. If the Bill falls there will be no social protocol vote, and, indeed, no social chapter for anyone, because the Maastricht treaty will not be ratified.
  I shall vote for Third Reading for all those reasons, and for another, personal reason. I have campaigned in two referendums for a yes vote over the past year—in the French referendum, at the invitation of the French socialists, and in the Danish referendum, at the invitation of the Danish social democrats. Both referendums were won, incidentally.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Well done, Giles.
  Mr. Radice: Fortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) did not go over to Denmark; otherwise the majority would have been even bigger.
  Even with an incomplete Maastricht Bill, it would be inconsistent if, when it came to my turn, I were to abstain. So I shall vote for Third Reading.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. David Howell: Like my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I welcome the likelihood that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading despite the bizarre and faintly ridiculous position of the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, to which the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is an honourable exception. I do not know how many more exceptions there will be.
  I welcome the likelihood of the Bill's securing a Third Reading, not because I regard the Maastricht treaty as perfect in all aspects—it has many faults and problems —but because ratification will clear the way and enable us to get on with our ideas and proposals for developing a Europe to meet the real priorities of the 1990s and of the next millennium, rather than the backward-looking hopes of a previous era. It will enable us to focus on 1996 and to develop the ideas on which the Foreign Secretary has already touched for designing a decentralised Europe resting on the authority and legitimacy of the nation states —a modern design, not an old-fashioned, over-centralised structure.
  Ratification will also enable us to get on with the single market, which is far from complete. It may work well for British beer drinkers who visit Calais—in fact, it is working too well in that respect—but in general there are many hurdles yet to be overcome before we can make the great single market yield its full benefit to this country.
  I also dare to hope that ratification will provide us with an opportunity to unite the Conservative party. I do not
  426
  believe that the Euro-rebels should be hated for ever. I regard that as a ridiculous statement, and I see the validity of many of their concerns. Nevertheless, I believe that in putting the Maastricht Bill and the principle—although not the process—of ratification behind us, we have an opportunity for what Enoch Powell once described as the elaboration of a mental map, a map that we can honestly all share about the way in which Europe should develop and the way in which we should operate within it. In approaching that work, we now have the opportunity of a completely new context within which to operate.
  Almost every Government have been in severe difficulties within the European Community; indeed, almost all the democracies have been in difficulties. That is because the context in which they were operating and in which the treaty was drawn up has changed totally. We can now see clearly that we have not a one-speed Europe, nor even a two-speed Europe, but a three or four-speed Europe, with some countries right outside the exchange rate mechanism—including this country, which is coming through the recession—some countries with so-called hard currencies, such as Germany, Belgium and Holland, with Switzerland and Austria outside the Community, and with France hanging on by its eyebrows—those countries are being dragged into the depths of the recession—and other countries that have already had to retreat somewhat within the ERM, such as Spain and Portugal, with Italy now right outside it.
  We have a three-speed Europe, within no convergence of any kind taking place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said, far from seeing convergence, we are seeing divergence. Not a single country's deficit, or debt as a proportion of GDP, conforms in any way with the Maastricht criteria, and those factors conform less as time goes by. That brings home the fact that the Maastricht architects' high hopes for European monetary union have proved totally impracticable. I do not know of any responsible banker with real insight and wisdom in the whole of Europe who now believes that the proposals and timetable for monetary union in the text of the Maastricht treaty are realistic or will be fulfilled.
  Worse than that, the existence of the dream of a single currency—a single currency is not at all necessary for a common market, and those who say otherwise are wrong —has turned the ERM and monetary co-operation in Europe into what has seemed like a stepping-stone or glide path to monetary union and the single currency, and that undermines sensible, practical monetary co-operation in Europe. We shall have to return to that sensible, practical co-operation when we have got rid of the fantasy of moving towards a single money and a single monetary policy for the whole of Europe from Lisbon to Berlin, and from Palermo to Glasgow. That is all nonsense, and it is undermining both the single market and the hopes of monetary co-operation in an extremely volatile world.
  The context has changed totally in that sense, and it has also changed, as my hon. Friends have reminded the House this afternoon, in the sense that we now have a very high-cost Europe. Even Jacques Delors appears to be in something of a panic as he orders special inquiries to be made into why Europe is pricing itself out of jobs and ruining its competitive structure. Those developments are moving rapidly.
  Can we compete, or can Germany compete, with Taiwan and Asia? Not only are labour unit costs in Hong

  427
  Kong one third of ours, but up the Pearl river from Guangdong province, people are producing not shoddy but high-quality goods at one tenth the labour costs of Hong Kong. To come nearer to home, to eastern Europe, some people say that Poland needs help. However, Polish exports need less and less help. They are extremely high-quality goods and very competitive. Those are the places with which we shall have to compete.
  As the more perceptive Opposition Members know, that underlines the absurdity of arguing that we should hold on to the social chapter doctrine at a time when the main need of the European powers, led by the Germans, is somehow to get out from under the whole idea of massive social overheads and uncompetitive labour costs that is undermining the prospect of European growth and employment. That has all changed, and I am glad that my party is on the right wavelength, although the Labour party is on the wrong wavelength.
  The priorities with regard to eastern Europe have changed, too. We have completely new, desperately important tasks. We must bring the Visegrad countries into democracy, which they will not achieve otherwise, and we must make some sense of the chaos and disaster that we have made of the Bosnian situation. Europe did the most irresponsible thing that a human being can do; it brought a child—a new state—into the world and then refused to accept responsibility for it or to do anything to prevent it from being torn into little bits, as is now happening.
  Finally, enlargement will take place. There seems to be an illusion that that will not totally change the structure of the Community. The four new countries will make the total 16, with 11 small states and five big ones. There will be 21 Commissioners and a vast new range of Members of the European Parliament. Sixteen people will be sitting round a table designed for six, and there will be 72 language combinations. That will totally change the way in which the Community works. The Maastricht treaty is only a stopping point, an interim measure before we have to move towards totally new procedures and structures, for which a new treaty will be required.
  We should now focus on the design for a decentralised Community, and for that we need more accountability. I dislike phraseology about decisions being brought closer to the people. It contains the patronising implication that power somehow comes from above, when it does not. Power goes upwards.
  We must make subsidiarity a political procedure. Everyone recognises that it is not a legal but a political procedure. This House will have a vital role to play in ensuring that it is made a political procedure, with our having a say early on in the pre-legislative process. We do heroic work scrutinising the legislation as it comes down from Brussels. But we must get in earlier in the process and ensure that we have an opportunity, pre the legislation, to test whether they are matters about which the Community should be legislating. That is the only way to make subsidiarity work.
  An enormous amount of work remains to do done. The Third Reading of the Bill will enable us to put immediate matters behind us—we do not know what is to come—and ensure that we begin focusing on the task of the 1990s to create the kind of Europe we want. Let us be realistic and accept that on the last occasion over Maastricht, Britain was on the defensive from the start. We lost the initiative
  428
  over the intergovernmental conference and even when we got to Maastricht, although we achieved some heroic exemptions.
  If we have confidence, the opportunity exists—if we are not in the mood to cop out and opt out—to seize the initiative in the shaping of the Europe for which there will be another treaty in 1996 and about which the review must begin now. On the last occasion we were on the defensive. If we show initiative now, we can win the race.
  7.11pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) made an important observation when he said that the official Labour party and the trade union movement have at last accepted Europe and the European Community. That is clear and he was right to make the point. Indeed, it is one of the clear impressions to be gained from the debates in Committee and on Report.
  There is today at the heart of British economic policy a grand coalition. The occupants of the Labour Front Bench as well as the leaders of the Liberal Democrats and the nationalist parties are junior members of that coalition. But members they are, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friends hope that, after the next election, they will be senior members of that coalition. Either way, the coalition will remain, and for the first time since the last war—perhaps in the pre-war era we had a kind of coalition for a short time over the gold standard—we have a fundamental and grand coalition on economic policy.
  I also get the impression from the debates in Committee that Ministers have been operating under a delusion, and I say that with particular respect to the Foreign Secretary, who was rather more defensive today. Otherwise, he and other members of the Government have been operating under the delusion that they gained a great victory at Maastricht. They seem to think that they saved the nation state—that they rolled back the frontiers of federalism, challenged centralising tendencies and so enabled the nation state to live again.
  I do not see Maastricht as a federal treaty, whether or not the word "federal" appears in it. Federalism implies democracy and I see little concern for democracy in the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, the European political class and the bureaucracy that follows it around is not that interested in democracy.
  If one compares the European political class with the American political class, for instance, one detects a totally different attitude towards a fundamental belief in democracy. The European political class wants European integration without democracy. It wants to play with and enjoy the flummeries of the nation state and still transfer the power of the nation state to the central institutions with which it feels it can deal and to which it can have almost sole and unrestricted access.
  So what we have from the Maastricht treaty is a Europe of institutions—a directoire of institutions—and of three in particular. They are the court, the Commission and a new institution, which will be the European central bank. The court gets more power. There are more words, there is another treaty and the court becomes more powerful. Should there ever be an ambiguity, absurdity or lack of clarity in the treaty, the court will interpret the relevant words and phrases in accordance with an ever closer

  429
  union. That has been the case in the past and it is bound to happen again, in the same way as the federal court in the United States has performed precisely that task.
  The Commission gains power. The Financial Secretary said during the passage of the Bill that the Commission had always had a general oversight over the the economic policies of member states. But under the Maastricht treaty it gets more than an oversight. Its gets power over the economic policies of member states. The Commission is the institution in the driving seat on the journey towards economic union. The bank is in the driving seat on the journey towards monetary union, which is what the bank is all about.
  As I say, we have a directoire of institutions which are ultimately responsible only to themselves, to the treaty and to the words. The three institutions are custodians of the word and, at the end of the day, the word is supreme in the whole set-up. We have been told that in 1996 there will be another intergovernmental conference. According to the treaty, that conference is supposed to make more efficient the institutions of the Community. The result will be more powers for the court, the Commission and the bank.
  The British Government believe that somehow, if we bring in five more countries, the centralising progress and power of the Community will be lessened. In fact, the opposite will be the case. Five more countries joining the Council of Ministers will result in an even greater dilution of that democratic arm. Imagine the result with five more countries in the European Parliament. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred to 78 varieties of language. There will be an assemblage of Babel in the European Parliament.
  The imperial civil service—the directoire, the three main institutions to which I referred—will become even more powerful. Politicians will come and go and they will not be able to understand each other without the necessary translating equipment. The translations will be terrible and they will have to return to their member states to clarify matters.
  With all that going on, the imperial civil service will be in place. It will be there, just as it was in place when it governed India under British rule, as it governed the Austro-Hungarian empire and as the Soviet Communist party governed the Soviet empire. Those developments will strengthen, not weaken, the centralising tendencies of those concerned and of the institutions, all totally undemocratic, of the European union.
  I fear that that will lead rapidly towards a common defence and foreign policy. The events in Bosnia and the rift with the United States reveal that the French and those who have argued against NATO have already won the intellectual argument and will move quickly towards a common European defence and common policy, with all its implications for the control of nuclear weapons and so on. There will then be a drive towards economic and monetary union and a single currency.
  I do not accept the claim that all that cannot and will not happen. There will be such a drive because the single market is failing. About 17· million people are unemployed. Only 60 per cent. of the people of western Europe who are capable of working are at work. About 40 per cent. are economically inactive. In the United States, the figure is 30 per cent. and in Japan it is 25 per cent.
  430
  As I say, the single market is not working. It is said that it would work if we had a single currency. It is claimed that that is the catalyst we need to make it all come together. I do not believe that it can work. The over-centralised, undemocratic, institutional nature of the Community after Maastricht cannot make Europe competitive with the United States or Japan or make it competitive with what is happening elsewhere in the world, including some of the Asian countries. We are creating a structure that militates against growth and technological development; it merely creates unemployment.
  Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are somewhat confused about a single or common currency. I believe that they agree with it. They also believe that monetary union is possible without monetary convergence. Apparently, with real convergence everything will work—but to have monetary union there must first be monetary convergence. Perhaps they believe that convergence will not be painful, but it will be extremely painful. The only way in which we can arrive at the sort of monetary union required in the treaty is by means of a sharp monetary convergence, as foreseen by those who drafted the treaty.
  Those of us who have argued against the treaty have been portrayed as sceptics, as fuddy-duddies and as old-fashioned thinkers, by contrast with the modernists, who are in favour of centralising, undemocratic and inflexible institutions. I am not quite sure now who are the modernists and who are the ancien regime. I am beginning to think that those in favour of the treaty are arguing for an ancien regime that will not work. Perhaps we are the modernists and perhaps history will prove us right.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Butler: I am enormously grateful finally to have caught someone's eye to make my maiden speech. I know that the House will afford me the usual courtesies for such an occasion. If I appear to be reading the speech, that is simply because I am. I should like to pay tribute to the taxi driver—anonymous—ill whose taxi I left the speech this afternoon and who took the trouble to return it to the House.
  It has long been my intention to speak on Third Reading of this Bill, hut, optimistically, I had expected that to be some months ago. As the very last of the 1992 intake to speak, I congratulate all my colleagues on their speeches. The pride with which they were delivered was matched by a universal determination to make a better world for the generations that will follow us. The friendship and informed debate exhibited on both sides of the House make it possible to believe that that is achievable.
  I intend to follow the traditional form of maiden speech before returning to the importance of the Bill to my constituency. That constituency is the only new and additional seat in this Parliament. Originally it was part of Buckingham and represented by that great socialist, Robert Maxwell—-thought then to be the epitome of the modern British Labour party. His name still appears on the boarded-up factories in my constituency, which he bought and then closed down.
  Inexplicably, he lost in 1970, and for 22 years Bill Benyon represented what became the Milton Keynes constituency. He did so with a courtesy, charm and effectiveness which endeared him to his constituents and a clear sense of duty and principle which endeared him at

  431
  times to the leadership of his party. He never lost his belief in the future of the new city of Milton Keynes and its success is due in large part to his unstinting efforts, to which I now pay tribute. That tribute was echoed by the Boundary Commission, which found it necessary to create two seats so that two Conservative Members could succeed him.
  In Milton Keynes, we boast by far the best built environment in the kingdom. We have more footpaths and bridleways than any other city, 7 million trees and almost as many roundabouts. We also have some concrete cows. But above all we boast of our people. We are a young and purposeful community which cares for its environment, which looks after its elderly and disadvantaged and which demonstrates best practice in many fields of endeavour. We build and plan better, we look after the environment better, we recycle what we can, and we work hard and live well.
  Milton Keynes is an harmonious multicultural city with a "can-do" approach to life and business. We prove day after day that new can be good, that enterprise can succeed and that commerce and a caring society can be mutually compatible. Our city motto, by which we live, reads, "By knowledge, design and understanding".
  My constituency includes a large part of rural North Buckinghamshire, with towns and villages which previous generations would still recognise. The Romans started a massive road improvement scheme in the early fourth century to encourage commercial activity in Britain. In my constituency, I am pleased to say, that programme is now nearing completion, with the widening of the M1 motorway. Perhaps the most astonishing continuity arises from the placing of the modern borough council offices —I believe by chance—just 100 yards from the old Saxon mound where the village moots, the earliest form of local government, were held. One thousand years of local people being involved in governing themselves is a proud record.
  In those days a moot was what we would term an enabling authority. It employed no one at all. Meetings were undoubtedly shorter, but I feel certain that moots must even then have been under Conservative control—as the county of Buckinghamshire remains, uniquely, today. In 1992, Her Majesty the Queen attended the opening of a new ecumenical city church in the constituency and heard, for the first time since the reformation, both Archbishop and Cardinal preach. That was a powerful statement of belief and a welcome to a future of which we in Milton Keynes are not afraid.
  To return to today's debate: it will decide whether the country joins Milton Keynes in welcoming the future. I shall try to maintain the tradition of non-contentious maiden speeches. From the vigorous and confident base that I have described, we look outwards to a hostile and dangerous world. Europe is a geographical area and a political conceit, but it is not a monastic retreat cutting us off from uncomfortable truths. As a trading nation we must know that we do not live or compete in Europe: we compete in the world. I have chosen to make my speech today because I believe that we should pause and consider before we vote on the Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill.
  Those of us who have listened quietly to the views on each side and who have voted to accept rather than to welcome the treaty have surely earned the right to issue a caution. The sovereignty of our people comes down from
  432
  history. This country was not invented a century or two ago to settle some long-forgotten imperial argument. Our constitution was not thought up by any invader, or imposed by international tribunal, or by the force of recent insurrection—nor are we accustomed to seeing it torn up and redrawn. My constituents have entrusted me with their sovereignty; in return, I have supported my Government. If history judges us to have been wrong on this issue, and if the statement that we are citizens only of Europe should turn out to have some legal meaning after all, we shall have destroyed what was not ours to destroy, and given away what we did not own but held only in trust.
  We live in a time of historic change. Socialism has collapsed, in Russia and elsewhere, and it does not look too healthy on the Labour Benches. That collapse has spawned desperate conditions for millions, now visible to us for the first time. War and starvation are widespread and not just where the television cameras go. Europeans are killing each other even as we speak.
  Through this wasteland of dead beliefs and decaying institutions, it is our duty to force a passage for our country. We can adapt geography to politics and call ourselves Europeans temporarily, but Britain predates and will outlive the idea of a politically united Europe. So what touchstones can we employ? Surely our history and special personality answer that. Wherever we have looked to our own national interest, tolerant of other ideas but ultimately confident in our own identity, we have been successful, based on that tolerance and on the energetic Christian morality of our people.
  Milton Keynes attracts investment from overseas, with 271 foreign-based companies choosing it because of the quality of our people, our communications and our lifestyle. We have welcomed 47 Japanese, 98 north American and 125 European companies. This inward investment is recognition that Milton Keynes is a quality place to do business, but it would not attract a single investor without the background of this Government's policies and our place in Europe.
  I am not prepared to vote today to tell the employers in my constituency that the United Kingdom is closing its doors on international business and on the challenges and opportunities of the future.
  I have heard too much about why we need Europe and perhaps too little about why Europe needs us. I believe that it does. Indeed, every true European visionary thinker has started from the basis that Europe cannot succeed without the United Kingdom. Without us, Europe would be incomplete and could never begin to fulfil its true potential.
  We have a duty to use our particular genius to act as the dynamo for the development of a free trade, tolerant society of independent nation states co-operating to take our people into the next century. I have no doubt that our national interests and the interests of my constituents are best served by extending our influence in Europe while maintaining our separate role in the world.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently asked for principled support for the Bill. I hope that I have indicated that. Others today will no doubt supply abstentions, principled or otherwise.
  I thank the House for its courtesy. If it wishes to extend a similar courtesy to me on another occasion I shall accept. I sit down with a relief which I am confident will be matched by all those who have been kind enough to listen to me today.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: That was a vintage maiden speech, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on it. They say good wine is better for waiting to taste it, and that was certainly true in his case. We look forward to other occasions when we will have a similar opportunity.
  We support the Bill; we supported it on Second Reading and for most of the time during its passage through the House. We have had a couple of reservations about it, but we want it on the statute book and we will be voting for it tonight.
  Plaid Cymru Members have been the most consistent of all parties in the House of Commons in our pro-Europe stand. We welcome the implementation of the Maastricht treaty, but we regret that the social chapter will not apply initially to the United Kingdom. I say "initially" because I am convinced that in the fullness of time, and perhaps sooner than many hon. Members believe, it will be necessary for the United Kingdom to accept the social chapter.
  I do not believe that it is possible to apply a single market on a fair basis if 11 countries have regard to minimal rights for workers and one tries to gain a competitive advantage by avoiding such responsibilities. I believe that we are in a transient position and that the sooner we accept the social chapter the better it will be for the working people of these islands.
  As hon. Members have mentioned, the Third Reading will facilitate a further debate on the social chapter under the provisions of clause 7. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand the attitude of some Opposition Members who are not prepared to support the Bill and will be abstaining on Third Reading. If we do not get the Bill through, the social chapter will not be available for anyone, either here or in the rest of Europe, because we will begin negotiating some new treaty.
  I respect the position of those hon. Members who have been opposed all along to the Bill, but I do not understand the mainstream within the Labour party who have said that they support Europe, have often voted with the most reactionary part of the Conservative party and are now making a principled stand of abstention on Third Reading.
  I support the Bill because of the importance of the European dimension for the future of my country. Wales is a European nation. We are a Celtic people. Our language, culture, religion and traditions are all rooted in Europe. Our civilisation is a European one. Wales is an historic nation and a European region, and the new Europe is the positive context within which we believe our identity can flourish in the 21st century.
  The treaty is also important in economic terms. To a large extent, the regeneration of the Welsh economy has been built on inward investment. Companies such as Sony, Bosch in Glamorgan and Euro-DPC in my constituency come to Wales because we are part of a European market and the European Community. If we were not, those companies would not be coming to Wales now. Companies considering investing there are holding back because of the uncertainty of our position. The well-being of Wales requires us to be a full, integral and enthusiastic part of the European Community, so, for economic reasons, it is necessary for us to be there.
  In terms of the development of Government institutions, it is important for Wales that the treaty makes
  434
  progress. The political structures of the United Kingdom are obsolete and more decisions are being taken on an European level. The agriculture policy that affects my constituents is being determined in Europe, as are decisions influencing industry and commerce. Decisions on the nature of the unitary markets that are taking over are being taken by the EC, and environmental policies, where one country's industry causes another country's pollution, must be co-ordinated on a European level.
  European Standing Committee B on which I serve demonstrates the significance of the growing European dimension for the workload of the House. We need structures that recognise that some decisions can, must and shall be taken on a European level. At the same time, some decisions that are taken here could be taken by the people they affect.
  Wales needs direct, strong links to the European Community. There is one tentative step in that direction in the Bill—the creation of the Committee of the Regions. That is a small step in the right direction. I hope that the Committee of the Regions will grow into the second chamber of the European Parliament, a decentralist chamber providing a counterbalance to the centralising tendency that is inevitably part of any first chamber. That would be analogous to the model in Germany today.
  It is important that Wales gets three or four seats out of the United Kingdom representation on the Committee of the Regions. We need democratic representatives. There has to be respect for pluralist nature of Welsh politics and it is essential that there is a reporting-back mechanism, that we do not send local councillors to that committee, sitting next to the ex-Prime Minister of Bavaria, without a strong regional base to give those representatives the credibility they need to argue the case.
  The Government must let us know quickly about the provisions for setting up the representation on the Committee of the Regions. When the treaty is ratified, nothing will happen on a European level without the Committee of the Regions, because its opinion will be needed even if it does not have a veto.
  For Wales to have a real link with European institutions we need more than a couple of councillors on the Committee of the Regions and occasional influence on the Council of Ministers through the Welsh Office. We need links from our own Parliament and representatives on European institutions in our own right. We need to ensure we have the same strength of voice and the same clout as other small nations such as Denmark and Ireland, and Catalonia, or regions such as Bavaria.
  The Council of Ministers must change, and there has been talk tonight of another treaty. As Europe develops and other nations come in, inevitably the mechanism of the Council of Ministers must change. I realise that Wales is only a small country and that the mechanism by which small countries get an entree into the decision-taking process must be different from the way it has developed over the past 20 or 30 years. We will miss out if we have no links whatsoever.
  The discussions over recent months about subsidiarity have been important, but we must recall that subsidiarity is not just an argument about the relationships between London and Brussels, Paris and Brussels and Rome and Brussels. If it means anything, subsidiarity is about authority, about sovereignty growing from the bottom up, and that can be aggregated on a Welsh level, a Scottish level and an English regional level, as well as a European

  435
  level. In other words, subsidiarity must be about taking decisions at the appropriate level and as close as possible to the people that they affect.
  The treaty is important in terms of creating a united continent. The basis of the original EEC was to avoid France and Germany ever again going to war in the way they have twice this century, at a cost to all of us in Europe. People say that could never happen again, but we need only to look at Bosnia and Yugoslavia to see that it could happen again. As a basis for peace, we need to safeguard a united Europe, built around the structures that we have developed over recent years.
  If we want other nations to join—the Scandinavian countries, Austria and eventually the eastern European countries—that structure must be based on maintaining the peace that is so essential. The Father of the House spoke of the need for us to make friends, and that must be a central consideration. The treaty is a step on that road. It is a step towards getting the sort of structure that can give the small, historic nations and small regions of Europe a direct voice within the decision-taking mechanisms. For that reason, we shall support Third Reading.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on a superb maiden speech and one with which I am happy to express general agreement, although I may be going a bit further when I walk into the no Lobby against the Government, with no fear of the Prime Minister, this time, having any reason to ask me to change sides at the last second.
  Watching the television version of Robert Bolt's "A Man for All Seasons" at the weekend, I was reminded of a comment that is true under all political regimes, and not just that in the reign of King Henry VIII—that to be different from everyone else is not easy. Sir Thomas More, a former Speaker and then Lord Chancellor, was talking to his son-in-law, Roper, who replied, "To be different is not necessarily to be right." Who is different and who is right about the Maastricht treaty is a good question.
  As one of the so-called Euro-sceptics who will be voting against Third Reading. I am in the Sir Thomas More tendency of being different from the majority in the Chamber. That does not necessarily mean that I am right, but then the Government are different from the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom in wanting the treaty ratified. The fact that the Government and their supporters are a minority on the issue does not make them necessarily right, either. The fact that the United Kingdom Government, alone in the European Community, 'Promote the Maastricht treaty as a decentralisation agreement—a significant check on federalism—does not make them necessarily right in that interpretation, either.
  One searches in vain, except perhaps in Denmark, for anyone, other than my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who really thinks that Maastricht is anything other than a move towards closer integration for the European Community. The Belgian Prime Minister, to whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has referred, dismissed that view, and he is the man who will he presiding over the Council of Ministers for the next six months from June. He made clear his commitment to using the Maastricht treaty as a stepping stone to a more
  436
  federal Europe. That approach was endorsed by the Luxembourg Foreign Minister and by Ruud Lubbers, the former Dutch Foreign Minister, who recently landed himself the well-paid job of European Commissioner for External Affairs.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a veritable Sir Thomas More in being in a minority among the European Heads of Governments in imagining that he has achieved a decentralising, anti-federalist Europe agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has never been under any illusions about that; nor has he ever sought to obscure his objectives for the European Community and our country's position within it. He made that crystal clear in a fine speech today.
  While I disagree profoundly with my right hon. Friend's view, I respect the sincerity and honesty with which he has always expressed it and I do not call into question his patriotism or that of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and elsewhere who want to submerge the United Kingdom within a closely integrated European Community, eventually having all the trappings of a unified state such as a common currency—a subject on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup dilated again—and centralised control of financial and taxation policies throughout the member states.
  It is to my right hon. Friend's shame that he appears unable to extend the same respect to those who disagree with him. At the weekend, he was heard to utter an extraordinary judgment on those of us who have a genuine concern about the Bill and the treaty that it is intended to implement. I heard him say on the radio, and it was repeated the next day in the Daily Mail,—
  "These people—
  meaning those of us opposed to Maastricht—
  are going to be hated for all time. Think what they have done to our party."
  No hon. Member knows more about being hated than my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. He also said, as many Conservative Members have so often said, that we fought the general election on a manifesto that included the Maastricht treaty as central to our policies, and we have no business voting against it now. He even said that we had not stated our objections at the general election.
  Long before the general election, and during the campaign, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) who represents the constituency neighbouring mine, will know—I am delighted to see him here in the guise of Chief Whip, and I am moderating some of the nasty things that I have said because I need his friendship—I made it clear that I could not vote for the Maastricht treaty until the British people had been consulted in a referendum.
  In 1987, in common with my right hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Norfolk, for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup, I had in my election manifesto a commitment to replace the household rating system, a property-based tax, with a flat-rate community charge. That pledge was carried when we passed the Local Government (Finance) Act 1988. That did not stop the Conservative Government going back on the manifesto pledge and bringing in, through the council tax, a

  437
  property-based tax to help finance local government. That was the complete opposite of the pledge on which they fought the 1987 general election.
  How dare those people say to me—I have been consistent on the issue—that I am not fulfilling my obligations to my electorate when I continue to warn them that the Maastricht treaty is not all it is cracked up to be? Everybody else in Europe can see that, but not those on the two Front Benches.
  Those on the Opposition Front Bench have failed to fulfil their constitutional responsibility to oppose the Government. What a fiddle-faddle—I cannot think of the right word—what a load of nonsense—a rude word has come into my mind, one that we use in Norfolk, but that would not be appropriate in the House.
  The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that we should have a referendum on the system of voting for Members of Parliament, but he does not believe that we should have a referendum on a fundamental change in our constitutional position, as a Parliament, vis-a-vis the European Parliament. It will not matter two hoots in five years' time how we elect Members to this Parliament, because we shall give away most of the powers that they have had in Milton Keynes and Great Yarmouth for centuries. One might just as well ask the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to appoint all of us, as he used to do when he was leader of the Conservative party so as to ensure that only those who took his view ever got selected in the first place.
  Watching the clock, and being conscious of the fact that I must finish by the end of my 10 minutes, I want to draw attention to a small example of how we have been misled, when the people of other European countries have not been misled. An article in The House Magazine quoted Karel De Gucht—I am not very good at pronouncing his name, but nobody pronounces mine properly so it does not matter. He was reported as pointing out:
  "after the Maastricht Treaty has been ratified the parliament"—
  that is, the European Parliament—
  "will be a genuine legislative body."
  He commented:
  "Maybe it is helpful for this government to get the treaty through if they don't tell this to the people."
  The Government have refused to tell the people. We should have a referendum and I urge the House of Lords to give us that opportunity. The other place will not be taking a constitutional decision, but it could give us the opportunity to think again. The function of the House of Lords is to let this great place come to a second decision, to reconsider the need for a referendum that will let the people of Britain decide on their future.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: This disastrous Bill is based on a treaty which can only do immense harm to Britain and the other countries of the Community. Even if the treaty did not contain the most rigid monetarist policies, I would remain totally opposed to it. My hon. Friends who are in favour of the treaty vote on every occasion against the monetarist policies of the Government, but they hide from themselves what I shall
  438
  later describe in detail—the monetarist policies that will undoubtedly cause tremendous suffering to many people in our country.
  However much I oppose the policies of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I have some admiration for him over this matter. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) spoke about the right hon. Gentleman's foolish remarks on Sunday about Tory critics, but at least I admire the fact that he makes no secret of his desire for a federalist, centralist Europe and, moreover, that he sees the treaty as a basis for that. However, I cannot admire those Ministers who pretend that the treaty has no such significance. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup makes his views absolutely clear at every opportunity and looks upon the United States as a federal model for Europe. I wish that Ministers were as frank about the matter as the right hon. Gentleman.
  The treaty is quite clear. It provides for economic and monetary union, although I accept that that will not happen immediately, a single currency, and a common defence and foreign policy—all of that leading in time to a single state. Euro-enthusiasts who believe that such a Europe is desirable will vote for the treaty. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is nodding, holds that view, but those who do not share his enthusiasm are, I believe, in the majority.
  At 10 o'clock there will be a large majority for Third Reading, and that majority will be made even bigger by the fact that my party intends to abstain. However, that vote will not accurately and fairly reflect the views of the House. If there was a free vote the treaty might still receive a majority, but it would be narrow and it is likely that the Bill would be defeated. Therefore, I do not see the vote at 10 o'clock as reflecting the House's view on the treaty. It is unfortunate that there will not be a free vote.
  The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) made a good maiden speech, and like him I do not think that we have any mandate to give up large chunks of economic and political sovereignty to the European central bank and other Community institutions. We were not elected to do that. The Government say that the treaty was mentioned at the last election, but the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is critical of the measure and of many other aspects of the European Community, said that in his borough his colleague here who represents a different view entirely got the same percentage of the vote. Therefore, how can it be argued that at the last election any of us received a mandate to give up so much of our economic and political sovereignty?
  There will not be a referendum, but not for all the reasons that have been given by Front-Bench spokesmen. It will be because there is a feeling, I hope justified, that it would not produce a majority in favour of the treaty. That is why Britain, unlike other countries such as Denmark, will not have a referendum.
  I do not challenge the fact that in future the House will be able to debate, as it has debated over the centuries, all the issues. The difference will be that crucial decisions for our country will no longer be taken in the House but elsewhere. Those who think that that is desirable may see it as another reason for supporting the treaty.
  When debating this measure I am reminded of how, at the very end of the 18th century, the then Irish House of Commons voted for union with Britain. Every sort of

  439
  bribe and promise was used to get a majority of 46 for the measure. A leading opponent of the union, Henry Gratton, said at the time:
  "The constitution may, for a time, be lost, the character of the country cannot be so lost."
  How right he proved to be, and how disastrous that union was.
  The fight for Britain to retain its national sovereignty will continue, irrespective of tonight's majority and the passing of the Bill by the Lords. Those of us who hold the view that I have expressed will not give up our belief that the House has a right, a duty and an obligation to the people to carry on as we have done throughout the centuries to ensure that the important and crucial decisions affecting our country are taken in this House.
  Like our predecessors on the Opposition Benches, I have always passionately believed that countries governed by Britain should have their independence. I argued for that and our predecessors argued for it even more strongly. That attitude was unpopular and at times Conservative Members accused Labour Members of speaking for every country but our own. If, like our Opposition predecessors, I believe so strongly and passionately that other countries should have had their national independence, how can I take any other view about my own country? We should retain our important national independence.
  It is not only a question of national sovereignty because article 104C of the treaty, for example, sets out the monetarist policies that I have mentioned. Governments will be expected to comply with measures such as a deficit of no more than 3 per cent. of GDP. That percentage is contained in a protocol. Bearing in mind the present deficit, reaching that 3 per cent. would mean a cut in public spending of about £33 billion—virtually the amount that is currently being spent on the national health service. What possible justification could there be for pursuing such a policy?
  A Conservative Government use every excuse to cut public spending. They do not need excuses, but would use the treaty by saying that they were trying to achieve convergence. A Labour Government, moreover, would be imprisoned by such policies. When they wanted to promote employment and training and spend money on our welfare services, they would be told time and again that they could not do so, that there was a limit in the treaty to the deficit. They would have to go to Brussels to explain, justify and grovel.
  Do those of my hon. Friends who favour the treaty want such measures? That is why, apart from anything else, the treaty is wrong. It is deflationary. The Community has 17 million unemployed. Does anyone imagine that the treaty will deal with the problem? It can only make it worse. It embodies all the rigid, monetarist, deflationary policies which are so wrong and which the Labour party has opposed on so many occasions.
  The treaty is disastrous. I find it difficult to understand how the Labour shadow Cabinet decided that our party should abstain tonight. We should vote against the Bill. I hope that at 10 o'clock, together with those Conservative Members who oppose the treaty, there will be many Labour Members in the "No" Lobby. However small the minority, it will more greatly reflect the opinion of the country than the majority that the Government will undoubtedly achieve.
  8 pm
  Sir George Gardiner: I join in the congratulations that have been heaped upon my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), who has now left the Chamber to take some well-deserved refreshment. He made a charming, witting and most informative maiden speech. He began by almost teasing himself for having left it for so long. He has shown that that is our loss, not his. Of course, there was once a newly elected Member called Margaret Thatcher who took 18 months to make her maiden speech—after that she never stopped. Whether or not my hon. Friend follows in her footsteps, he will be able to look back with some pride on his maiden speech tonight.
  I have always been a strong advocate of our membership of the European Community. I was a founder member of the Conservative Group for Europe. I warmly supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he took us into the Common Market, as it was then called. During the referendum I campaigned vigorously for a yes vote. I supported the Single European Act. Indeed, I have no regrets.
  However, I cannot accept the Maastricht treaty, or the Bill that would give it effect in our domestic law. Support for the single market and for joint action on such shared concerns as protection of the environment is one thing; support for the centralising tendencies and loss of democratic control embodied in this Bill is quite another. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spells out his view of the sort of Europe that he wants, I have no difficulty agreeing with him. The problem comes when I try to match those worthy ambitions with the contents of the treaty. I am afraid that the two do not match.
  I listened to most of the debates during the Committee stage of the Bill, and what a revelation they were. The concept of subsidiarity has not lived up to the claims made for it and it still has no precise legal definition. The dice are loaded against any member state taking a case to the European Court when it is in dispute with the Commission over the application of subsidiarity. We heard all the arguments, and there will be more, about the social chapter, yet it has been shown that our voluntary exclusion can be got round by other means by a majority of member states—possibly by using articles 1 and 2 in conjunction with article 118a of the treaty of Rome.
  Whether or not they want it, we are conferring on the Queen's subjects a European citizenship with rights and duties, yet no one has been able to say precisely what those rights and duties will he. We have the opportunity to opt out of a single currency, but I foresee that when we come to make that decision we will be subjected to exactly the same arguments as those which we have heared during our debates on the Bill.
  I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in whatever capacity he might then hold, will say that if we do not embrace a single currency international investment will flood away. We will be warned of the dangers of setting ourselves aside from other states in Europe. There is no opt-out from the obligations to achieve monetary union, in particular the obligations of stage 2, which begins next January. By slow degrees, the British people, through the British Parliament, will lose control of our economic policy.

  441
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently made some comments, which I welcome, about our obligation to rejoin the ERM. I think that he is underestimating the pressure under which he will come from the rest of Europe for Britain to rejoin the ERM during stage 2.
  With such far-reaching implications, the Government are most unwise—I put it no stronger—to proceed to ratification without granting any say to the British people. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup signed up Britain to the treaty of Rome, he at least believed—he had good cause for doing so—that he had the full-hearted consent of the British people. That was subsequently challenged by the Labour party and a referendum was held, which showed beyond any shadow of doubt that continued membership had our full-hearted consent.
  I challenge any Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and assert that the Government have the full-hearted consent of the British people to ratify the Maastricht treaty of union. They will not do that, because they cannot do it. It was never an issue in the general election and it has never been put to the British people. Ratification by the United Kingdom has no democratic legitimacy.
  As the debate has proceeded, deep wounds have been inflicted on the unity of my party, both in the House and in the country. It has given me no joy to vote in the opposite Lobby to respected hon. Friends on what I judge to be an issue of principle. I very much hope that, after tonight, we can begin to heal the wounds. I have said previously that there must be life in the Tory party after Maastricht and we have many other important things to do.
  However, for that to happen there must be mutual respect between those who have taken, and will continue to take, different views on a matter of such deeply held principle. There must be no talk of hatred for the rest of our lives. The argument over Maastricht will continue, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, until such time as ratification acquires some domestic legitimacy.
  I fear for the future—not just for this country, but for the 12 nation states that are bound together in the Community—as democratic power is slowly shifted from national Parliaments to Community institutions. That shift of power will start next year when we enter stage 2 of monetary and, in consequence, political union. I can foresee the time when I, as a Member of Parliament, receive submissions from, for example, my local chamber of commerce. It will say, "Sir George, we believe that interest rates are too high for the efficient conduct of our business. Will you undertake to press the Chancellor to bring them down?" I will reply, "Yes, interest rates are too high, but I am afraid that there is nothing I can do to help you. You see, under the Maastricht treaty, power and decision over interest rates effectively lies with the unelected members of the European central bank."
  "But surely," they will say "you can at least ask the Chancellor to press the case for British business." I will have to reply, "No, because even if I did, the Maastricht treaty prevents him from offering advice to those unelected bankers. They are cocooned against such advice and pressures. Nor is it any use going to your MEP, because he is not allowed to make representations on your behalf, either.
  442
  Then, I am sure, my constituents will look at me with incredulity and say, "But don't we live in a democracy? When were we consulted about whether we wanted to surrender this influence over our own future?" I shall have to say, "No, you weren't consulted. The powers have been signed away and we can never get them back." I have to warn the Government that when that comes to be generally recognised, the backlash will be terrible to behold.
  I have three adult children and no grandchildren as yet, but when I have, never will they be able to come to me and say, "Grandpa, why did you vote to make the House of Commons irrelevant?" That is why I shall vote against the Bill.
  8.10 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The House of Commons has a basic function to fulfil and that is not only to represent the views of the people who vote for us, but to tell those same people what is being done in their name by elected Governments.
  I have been here a long time now and I have learnt to appreciate that, whatever the difficulties of this institution, it fulfils precisely that role. It is the link with the constituencies and the direct ability of our electorate to tell us their views which gives us our strength when we speak in the Chamber of the House of Commons. It is our commitment to protect their interest which gives us a legitimacy. Therefore, I shall vote against the Bill tonight because it is profoundly anti-democratic.
  I have listened carefully throughout the debate. I have listened to those far more informed than I, including former Treasury Ministers such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), putting forward cast-iron arguments about the movement of control of our economy from Westminster to an unelected group of officials in Brussels.
  I have listened to those who understand better perhaps than I do the finer points of constitutional law, and I have tried to understand how it can be that the House of Commons, which for so long has judged itself to be a protector of people's fundamental rights, has not somehow found it possible to convey to the people of the United Kingdom exactly what is being done in this Chamber and at this time, because it is such a wide-ranging change in our law.
  Many people outside the Chamber do not understand constitutional law. Why should they? But they understand the connection between the gathering of taxes and the spending of taxes. That is so basic that they make their views known. It is frequently the basis on which they decide their votes in a general election. Yet here we are, as protectors of that fundamental right, being cheerfully prepared to hand it over without making it clear to the people who have put us here what we are doing.
  One of the saddest things for me throughout the debate was to sit here and to regard our free press, noticeable by its absence, listening to Members of Parliament putting forward detailed arguments, knowing that they were, in effect, talking to a limited number of people.
  We have been told by Ministers, even, I am sorry to say, by the Opposition Front Bench, "Don't worry about this legislation. It really isn't terribly important. After all, a lot of countries that signed up to the treaty didn't really mean

  443
  it. There has been a change in the Government. There has been a change in the economic situation. All will be well if you just have trust in letting the legislation go through."
  I am not the youngest Member of this Parliament, and I am too long in the tooth to believe that any legislation should be allowed on to the statute book on the assumption that it will not count. Every bit of legislation counts. Legislation that takes powers from the House of Commons anywhere else counts more than any other.
  After all, we are dealing with our economic control. How can members of my own party support loss of control over their own planning rights? How can those of us who care about the national health service, education, and housing, let decisions on those be taken by others elsewhere, over whom we have no control? "Don't worry," we are told in that pseudo-English that is the protector of those who wish to confuse rather than illuminate any argument, "we will correct the democratic deficit." By that they mean that they will transfer even more powers to even more people who will have the right to initiate legislation that we shall not have the right to correct.
  The refusal of members of both Front Benches openly to debate the rights and wrongs of the legislation is, at the very best, unhelpful, and at worst, demeaning. There has been no correct exercise of our responsibility. Many women outside the Chamber say to me, "I don't know about politics." But they know what politics does to their families. They know what legislation means in terms of taxation, and they know that if they are taxed wrongly, if their views are not taken into account, and if the obvious legislators who should be voicing their opinions are not doing so, others will begin to take direct action. That is what I fear most.
  The House of Commons developed because people believed that they had a right to say how their money should be spent, how their votes should be cast, how their Government should behave and how their future should be planned. I do not see anyone, on either Front Bench, telling my people in future, "You will be the citizen of a union—a union that you did not pick, a union that you were not asked about, a union to which you will have responsibilities that no one has even spelt out." To me, that is a most dangerous thing.
  I do have grandchildren. I have six. They are being brought up to speak several languages and I find it sad, because language has always been my only facility—I had a father who said that I was frightened of stopping talking somewhere—to hear people in the House of Commons decide that those of us who oppose this legislation are little Englanders. With a Welsh father and a half-Irish and half-Norfolk mother, I find that description difficult to understand.
  But I am a proud member of the United Kingdom, which is a free association of four different nations which work, live, argue, fight, support and are taxed and represented here within these islands. They are my concern. My party has served them ill and I shall vote tonight feeling firmly that the future of democracy is not served by those who impose political structures from above.
  People decide what political structures they want, people create Parliaments, people demand rights and cast their votes, and we are tonight underplaying their interest and serving them very badly. I am ashamed of the role of the House of Commons.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: The only notable contribution that I have made to the Maastricht debate so far was to support the Government in a crucial Division in my pyjamas. I could have remained downstairs in the ambulance and have been nodded through on that occasion in March, but I made that effort—which was quite painful—to demonstrate support for the achievements for Britain of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at Maastricht and for their vision of the Europe of the future.
  In common with my right hon. Friends, I want to see a decentralised, less bureaucratic and widening Community that will embrace EFTA and the new democracies, and a successful and expanding single market without a premature commitment to a single currency. I suspect that many of those who intend to vote against the Government tonight want the same—my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) confirmed that.
  The judgment the House must make tonight is whether those objectives are more likely to be achieved with Britain remaining at the centre of the Community by ratifying the treaty or by Britain abandoning the principles of co-operation and compromise that brought us here tonight. I well understand the fears of some of my constituents at the possible consequences for Britain of the treaty. Much of its terminology is unfortunate; it is misleading; and it is certainly open to much misinterpretation. There are also fears that it is all irreversible if we sign.
  There is nothing that the House cannot change if a majority of right hon. and hon. Members believe it to be in Britain's interest to do so—although I appreciate that not every right hon. and hon. Member will agree with that statement.
  Much of the treaty is based on a bygone age. It was negotiated when the Soviet Union was in being. and agreed before the recession really hit Europe and the full consequences of German reunification were realised. It represented a negotiated compromise, but it has kept the Community together. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the opt-outs that he achieved, for Britain the treaty is more symbolic than of substance.
  We remain a leading and influential partner in the European Economic Community, and British business has been calling for that. My local Dorset chamber for industry and commerce regards that as essential for jobs and prosperity in our county. It wants an end to all remaining barriers to trade in the single market, with fairer competition. It wants the earliest-possible harmonisation of value added tax and duties.
  In my constituency, tourism is the main provider of jobs. Hoteliers complain that VAT on tourism-related items in France and other Community countries is nearly three times lower than in Britain, and that is unfair competition for them. Off-licences, tobacconists and small corner shops complain that they will be put out of business by imports of duty-free goods from across the channel, and I hope that that situation will not continue to be ignored. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is listening.
  The principal reason that I want a ratified treaty to be put behind us is that we should seek with all possible speed a wider Europe, as opposed to a deeper, federal Community. As some of my hon. Friends know, I am greatly involved in bringing the new democracies into full

  445
  membership of the Council of Europe, as chairman of its Committee for Relations with European Non-Member States. In Strasbourg last week, we welcomed the accession of Slovenia, Lithuania and Estonia, and we anticipate the membership next September of Romania and Latvia. We are currently considering the applications of nine more newly democratising countries.
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit was exactly right in March to warn against a new iron curtain between the rich post-Maastricht Community and the poorer democracies. But where he is wrong is that successfully to accommodate the wider Europe without compromising all that the Community has achieved to date requires it to be kept together by ratifying Maastricht now.
  Thanks to the initiatives of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before and during the British presidency, that process is already under way, with negotiations with some EFTA countries and association agreements with some new democracies. I am particularly encouraged that talks have begun between the Community and Russia about a free trade zone. It will be a close-run thing as to whether the Russian federation follows the break-up of the Soviet Union.
  Every one of the new democracies expects to join the European Community one day. For them, a Community in which Britain does not have a central role because it did not sign the treaty is inconceivable. It would be a disaster for them, as it would be for democracy, human rights, and all for which we stood alone against Hitler in 1940. Since the last war, five pan-European institutions have been established with different roles and differing memberships to encourage peace and co-operation. If we were to start from scratch today, probably the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe would be the only organisation closest to that required to promote security, trade, democracy and human rights throughout the continent.
  Instead, the Maastricht treaty paves the way to greater unity and security with the Community as the core, and a common foreign and defence policy as the means—as Churchill and others foresaw—to guarantee peace in Europe. Without British membership and influence, that wider, more secure Europe is less likely to be achieved.
  As none of my hon. Friends who oppose Maastricht has produced any credible constructive role for Britain, I have no hesitation supporting the Government tonight.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We have about 40 minutes before the wind-up speeches. I make a plea for five minute contributions. Mr. George Howarth.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: It is just a year since this process started, with the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill to ratify the Maastricht treaty. I spoke on that occasion, but not at subsequent stages. As a result, I have much to say, but as I am conscious of the number of my hon. Friends who want to contribute, I shall be brief.
  446
  My problem with the treaty and with the Bill is that I consider myself to be pro-European, but honour-bound to oppose the treaty. If that sounds inconsistent, I shall explain why I hold those conflicting views. I believe that Britain's future is in Europe—there is no alternative, and I can conceive of no circumstances in which, in this day and age, we would want to withdraw from the Community. However, it does not necessarily follow that one must support the treaty because there is nothing to take its place. That was the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson).
  All the strong arguments in favour of the treaty hinge on an enormous lapse of logic. Even the Foreign Secretary and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee produced excellent examples of that today. They do not say, "This section of the treaty is so good, and the whole process of economic and monetary union is so sound, that you must support them." Instead, they say, "These things will never happen. They are all there in the treaty, but you must support it because there is nothing to take its place —but because those things will never happen, it will not hurt you to vote for the treaty."
  I accept that it is not explicitly stated in the treaty that its purpose is to create a federal Europe. However, all the apparatus for that—or architecture, as the Foreign Secretary would probably more eloquently describe it—is present.
  The Foreign Secretary would perhaps refer more elegantly to the architecture of a federal Europe. There is the whole drive towards economic and monetary union; there is the central bank; there is the move towards a single currency; and there is the attempt to recreate the institutions in a more federalist mode.
  But we are told that these things will never happen. I find that a very difficult proposition to swallow. As a realist, however, I accept—with a heavy heart, as I am not one of the Labour party's natural rebels—that I must vote against the Third Reading. I accept that the current mathematics of the House of Commons means that the Bill will receive its Third Reading. Unlike other hon. Members, I do not think it likely that the measure will be significantly amended in another place. Indeed, any amendments at all are unlikely to originate there. Unless something inconceivable happens, the Bill is likely to end up on the statute book.
  Given that, without the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself or of several Conservative Members, the measure will pass into law, there is an important function ahead for its opponents, especially my colleagues who will abstain tonight. Some of the central problems of Europe will have to be addressed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to a document. I realise that several of my hon. Friends have not seen it, as it is going through a particular process. The document is about prosperity through co-operation and a new European future, and its headings sketch out the important features that must be considered—the extension of equality rights in a people's Europe, the lifting of the burden of the common agricultural policy, consumer rights, and democratisation of the Community. There is an excellent section about a wider Europe. Those are the issues that must be addressed.
  This treaty is not the answer, but I hope that people —particularly members of my party—will ensure that the excellent objectives that we have set for ourselves will have flesh put on them. At present, there is a real fear that

  447
  Europe is moving in a direction that does not have the wholehearted support of its peoples. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the backlash against such movement could be horrendous.
  8.32 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: The only thing that this hour proves is that Privy Councillors are not always given the preference that other Members believe they receive.
  Like many people, I am delighted that we have reached the Third Reading, and I hope that the Bill will be passed by the largest possible majority. The legislation sets out a formula by which the European Community can advance positively. Forty-five years ago, in the late spring of 1948, the first branch of United Europe was formed at Oxford. Among the people supporting that organisation with me were Peter Kirk, Sir Edward Boyle, Jeremy Thorpe and someone known as Richard de Taverne, better known to us as Dick Taverne, a previous Member for Lincoln.
  I cannot understand the little Englanders, on either side of the House, who perceive Britain's playing little part in Europe but want and expect to be able to gain everything possible from the trading benefits that the European Community may provide. If they think that we shall benefit without playing our part, they might as well believe that Mitterand is a German in disguise.
  As a member of the North Atlantic Assembly, I should be in Berlin at the moment. However, I remained here to speak and vote in this debate. As the treasurer of the new parliamentary assembly of the Conference on Cooperation and Security in Europe, I am in contact with many members of the parliaments of all the EC member states.
  Those people—perhaps not the French and the Germans, though even the Germans to some extent—have often asked me why Britain is not playing a more major role in the European Community. They appreciate the role played and the leadership given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister while he was chairman of the Council of Ministers and at the Edinburgh summit. Perhaps those in Britain who criticise the Prime Minister's leadership should listen to the admiration expressed by members of the parliaments of other countries.
  I want to speak about two financial matters and one other topic. It appears to me that there are merchants of gloom who reject the appeals and the statements of many people, especially the President of the Board of Trade, who clearly show that, with Britain playing its full part in the European Community, we shall be massively attractive from the point of view of enticing foreign investment to these shores.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lindsey, East (Sir P. Tapsell) has expressed the fear that Japanese investment could well be discouraged—even withdrawn—if we continue with Maastricht or let Maastricht overcome our thinking. My experience is exactly the opposite. As a director of an Anglo-Japanese company in this country, I have many Japanese connections here and in Japan. I can say absolutely that my entire experience of those people is that they are interested in Britain because Britain is playing a major role in Europe. [Interruption.] I do not mind what other people say, and I believe that people with first-rate experience in this field ought to be listened to.
  Foreign investment here has other benefits. It brings business people, and often their families, on visits to this
  448
  country; it encourages interest in British goods; it facilitates contacts which, if properly used, can stimulate trade abroad.
  The Prime Minister is correct in his view that it will be impossible for us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism unless its inadequacies are corrected. However, anyone who is associated with exporting or importing, with international commerce, must understand and advocate the benefit of knowing of the stability of exchange rates in the context of the currency in which he has to conduct his business. The exchange rate variations that we have seen over the past few years cannot necessarily be covered or insured against affordably.
  To those who advocate complete freedom in the open market in foreign exchange I say carefully and concisely that they are friends of the international speculator. It is ethically wrong and morally indefensible that a few international speculators are able to make massive multi-fortunes at the expense of ruin for a nation's currency. That type of outmoded free market is indefensible, and we must find a way to limit it.
  Is that possible? I believe that it is. The most entrepreneurial market in the world—the American stock exchange—has stop controls which ensure that, if the market moves more than 50 points in either direction, it closes down. That also applies to a number of the commodity markets. I urge the Government, particularly finance Ministers, to get together with G7—not just our European colleagues, as we need Japanese and American co-operation as well—to consider the structure of foreign currency rates, which should be reviewed to a much greater extent than they ever were in the ERM.
  When that structure is set, should there be movement above a prescribed and agreed level the settlement date ought to be put back for between seven and 10 days. That would stop the speculators and short term-borrowing. It would go a very long way towards ensuring that foreign currency rate variations were avoided. It would also mean that the speculators would be unable to ruin a currency.
  Subsidiarity—that ghastly word—will ensure that power is not passed to the Commission, but remains the absolute right of the member state. There will always be organisations and civil servants who wish more power to pass into their hands. That is why Maastricht is so important. It puts an end to that happening by slow absorption. The European Parliament will be given more control over the Commission than it has ever had before. It will take back certain powers that have been assumed by the Commission in Brussels.
  I urge my right hon. Friends who will serve on the different ministerial Councils to guard against power slipping away to the Commission. Equally, Ministers must ensure that when European Commission regulations are promulgated by means of regulation in this country, there is no extension of those regulations, either for the sake of clarity or, even worse, because they have been hanging around Departments for a long time. We must watch that like a hawk.
  Anybody who understands what has happened in the House ought not to hanker after a referendum. The referendum motion was defeated by a majority of 239. Hon. Members in all parts of the House voted against it. It is important to emphasise that point, so that the other place, an unelected Chamber, does not try to override that

  449
  very strong expression of opinion in the lower House. To do so would be absurd and would lead to further delay in signing the treaty.
  The single market means that Europe will become a constructive federation of nation states, not a single state in itself. Britain will play a positive role in the centre of the European playing field. In years to come, the treaty will be seen as a treaty that ensures the future of Europe. It will also ensure that wars between European nations will never again be fought. It will mean that Europe has a better and more unified economic structure. A united Europe will then be able to play a major role in the history of the world.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The public do not support the treaty. It is not demanded by the people. It is being imposed from the top down by an arrogant elite who are going too far and too fast down a road that most people do not want to go. It is being imposed by a grisly gang of old men, like Mitterrand and Kohl, who have lost support in their own countries and whose time is up. They are the men of yesterday, seeking to foist their outmoded and outdated straitjacket on Europe.
  I had wanted to say something about economics, but I intend to obey your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, apart from saying that the exchange rate mechanism, with its high interest rates, has pushed the whole of western Europe into recession. It has caused massive unemployment. At the moment, 20 million people are unemployed. There will be zero growth this year, which means that unemployment will rapidly rise to 30 million. That will be the effect on the whole of western Europe of the exchange rate mechanism.
  If we are to make these major constitutional changes and set up a European union, of which we are all to become citizens, and if we are to transfer power over our economy to unelected bodies, which we cannot remove, including the autonomous central bank, it would be wrong and a grave constitutional impropriety and outrage to do so with no mandate and without the consent and agreement of the British people.
  No one can say that the Government have explained to the British people what is envisaged or involved. The issue was not discussed at the recent election. The Bill is being pushed through a whipped House of Commons, with the important parts of the treaty having been debated in the dead of night while the nation slept and the media did not report. That is not only wrong but dangerous.
  If we were to rejoin the ERM and conformed to the convergence criteria, which would lead to deflation, economic stagnation and even greater mass unemployment—which has already led to our constituents coming to us with their grievances—what should we say to them? We should have to tell them that their Parliament no longer had any powers over these matters, that those matters could no longer be affected by voting and that we, without consulting the voters, had given all these powers away when we passed the Maastricht Bill.
  What would happen then? What would be the response and the reaction of the British people? Would it be in the least surprising if there were a growth of extremist
  450
  movements? Democracy would be threatened and Parliament undermined. That is why it is dangerous to push the Bill through without consulting the voters.
  Those who want the treaty and who want to make these changes would be wise to ask the electorate to share the responsibility, so that if things go wrong they can say to them, "You voted for it." It is in everybody's interest that, if this is to be done, it should be done only with the whole-hearted consent of the British people. All else is improper and dangerous. That is the case for a referendum.
  Another reason why it is dangerous is that we as parliamentarians have always told people to obey the law, because it has been democratically decided and can be changed democratically through the ballot box. But what if the law is to be made by institutions outside this country, by people who are not elected by us and who cannot be removed by us? If matters such as the running of our economy cannot be affected by voting and if Parliament and the people are to be robbed and stripped of their powers to determine their own future, that will be very dangerous. If it is to be done, the country should do it with its eyes open, consciously understanding what it is doing.
  Under our system of parliamentary self-government, the only restricton on the sovereignty of Parliament is, by definition, that no Parliament can bind its successors. I regard that as one of the glories of our constitution. It means that each new generation can do its own thing in its own way. It can make changes peacefully and legally, without violence or bloodshed. All that would go. The treaty would rob future generations of those rights and powers. It even purports to tell future Governments and Parliaments—Governments not yet elected, even—what their budget deficit should be.
  We are arrogating, binding, restricting and shackling future generations and Parliaments by seeking to extend our dominion into the future, thus robbing our successors of their freedom of choice. I want no part of that. It is outrageous that Parliament is purporting to do it without consulting the people.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: You have asked, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for five-minute speeches. For me to give the reasons why I intend to vote against Third Reading in five minutes is a bit of a tall order, but I shall do it in this way, if I may.
  I have had the honour to listen to almost every speech in the past few months during which we have debated the issue. I have detected four arguments in favour of the Maastricht Bill. I intend to spend one minute on each.
  The first argument is that Maastricht is a step towards the reassertion of national independence. Two points have been made in favour of that argument. The first is subsidiarity; the second is the intergovernmental agreement.
  Subsidiarity seems to me to be the opposite of decentralisation. In order to have subsidiarity, one must have a central organisation that can determine what. is subsidiary. Therefore, the Commission and the European Court will determine that we can build the Winchester bypass in return for us letting them run our economy. Somebody has to determine what subsidiarity is, or what

  451
  things are to be subsidiary. It has to be done by a central organisation, and that is the opposite of how subsidiarity has been presented to us.
  Under European law, the intergovernmental agreement does not work in the way that it has been presented. Title V of the treaty, which proposes a common foreign policy, is subject to the intergovernmental agreement, but in the preamble to the treaty, article B says that a common foreign policy is an objective of the treaty. One fault of our lawyers is that, in negotiating treaties, they ignore the importance of the preamble in European law. That point has been made several times by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith). A preamble to a treaty determines how lawyers reach their judgments.
  The core of the treaty is what matters. The core is a single currency. A single currency means a single Government, not only because a country hands over control of its coinage, money and banking system, but because a single currency means a single pricing system, and since we shall have unequal wages the Greeks will be unhappy about paying German prices on Greek wages. There will therefore have to be a single compensatory authority, a single taxation authority and single expenditure authority, which are provided for in the Bill. Once a country has handed over control of all that, it has handed over control of most of what is the essence of an independent state.
  Those in the institutions of Europe who have really considered the matter concur with that, and once the Maastricht process is completed more people will come out who really know what is going on. For instance, the European Parliament's constitution for European union dropped off the back of a lorry into my lap. It is produced by the Committee on Institutional Affairs. The preamble states:
  "With Maastricht", which it assumes to have been passed,
  "the European Union (EU) has reached an advanced status and a degree of complexity which calls for a codification and with regard to the changing world order for a progressive new step for the realisation of an integrated Europe."
  It goes on to spell out what it means: that the Government of Europe should be the Commission and that the Head of State should be the President of the Commission. Rather generously, it says:
  "National authorities should be given adequate room for manoeuvre so as to avoid the pitfalls of centralisation; the system should be sufficiently cohesive to prevent the watering-down of joint rules."
  The European Parliament is clear that, once Maastricht is passed, we shall move towards codification into a union of Europe.
  The second point that is raised in defence of the treaty is that it is so absurd it will not happen and, in particular, that the Germans will save us because they do not want the deutschmark to be subjugated. It is argued, "It does not matter if we pass the thing. We might as well get on with it because it is the best damage containment job that we can do."
  One can only say what has been said before: we must accept that this treaty will become the law of the land, and the law of the land will include, for instance, article 109j, which says:
  "If by the end of 1997 the date for the beginning of the third stage has not been set, the third stage shall start on 1 January 1999."
  That will be the law of the land. We can argue about whether the opt out will apply and whether it matters in the long term—I shall battle for the continuation of the
  452
  opt out—but the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made an extremely good speech at about three o'clock one morning in which he showed the continuing effect from stage 2 to stage 3; there is not time to go through that now.
  It is clear that we cannot go ahead with the treaty on the basis that it will not happen. I suppose that some people went ahead with the Single European Act on the basis that it would not happen; people voted for it without knowing what they were voting for or because they thought that it would not happen.
  The third argument, which has been made by several hon. Members, is that, if we do not pass Maastricht, it will be bad for jobs, bad for business and bad for investment. If that is true, why did the Japanese and others invest massively in Britain in the mid-80s, when we had flexible control over our economy? That investment began to dry up when we shadowed the deutschmark and almost came to a grinding halt in the middle of our membership of the ERM.
  Now that we have left the ERM, investment is being made again, people are laying investment plans and we have growth and jobs. If our leaving the ERM was such a disaster, why is the opposite being reflected in economic statistics
  It is said that there is no alternative. That depends, of course, on what one thinks of an unelected government of Europe superimposing itself on a democratic constitution such as ours. I do not argue my case on the basis of the eternity of the nation state—the nation state is a relatively recent invention—but from a concern about the replacement of our democratic institutions with undemocratic institutions that will control our lives; surely I must be allowed to say that there is an alternative. The alternative is what we have at the moment, which is a free trading market looking outwards with its democratic institutions intact—an association of independent states. That is what I base my case against the treaty on.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I should like to call this a day that will live in infamy, but it has been 26 days, most of which have been nights. It is no ornament —no glorious chapter in our parliamentary history because we have seen a three-party conspiracy to force on the House and on the country a treaty that the people do not want, and without consulting the people. It has been smuggled through on the basis of assurances, most of which I would call not untruthful but fantastic.
  We had assurances—usually from junior spokesmen at dead of night—that all sorts of measures in the treaty do not apply. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have assured us that nothing is irrevocable and that we can at any time take back the powers that we surrender under the treaty. I hope that they say that when we are in power.
  We have had assurances from the Government that there is no compulsion to return to the exchange rate mechanism, despite the fact that stage 2 is built around the irrevocable linking of currencies. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, we shall be forced back into the ERM.
  The Danes have been pressured and conned into supporting the treaty at a time when the rest of Europe is turning against it, so the Foreign Secretary found himself in an embarrassing position this afternoon. He has the

  453
  genius that he always speaks better the worse his case is, which is, I suppose, the art of diplomacy. He ignored what is in the treaty—a treaty with a centralising drive that gives more power to the Commission and takes economic management from national Governments—and asked us to vote for it to get a decentralised Europe, a trammelled Commission and power returned to the parliaments of the national states.
  Those were his arguments: vote for it because we want the opposite of what it proposes, which is slightly different from the argument of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, which is, "Vote for it to get what we hope it actually means, even if what it actually says is not supported by our own people." A gulf is emerging between the Labour party and our own people.
  The Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are determined to show themselves good Europeans by abandoning the weapons we need for the economic management of this country to rebuild our manufacturing business base, to return to full employment and to improve the lot of our people. Interest rates, exchange rates, the money supply and the level of Government borrowing will all be abandoned to show ourselves as being communautaire and good Europeans, even if our supporters and voters are not.
  Such a stance cannot allow the treaty to be workable. Monetary union is at the treaty's core, and is impossible to achieve. If it proceeds quickly, we shall have "instant eastern Germany", if it proceeds slowly, we need the bridge of the exchange rate mechanism to arrive at that goal, and that bridge cannot be rebuilt. If we make the attempt to achieve that goal, we shall be locked into a deflationary regime and trap. I do not mind if others go ahead with monetary union. It will ruin them and benefit us because we are currently benefiting from competitive devaluation. It was good to see the Chancellor here this afternoon—he was allowed out into the community at last to listen to the arguments in this place. We know that that will not happen—instead, we shall be under intolerable pressure, both internal and external, to go back.
  The treaty is outdated. It is a monetarist treaty when we need a Keynesian treaty; it is deflationary, when it should be expansionary. It is a treaty of fixed rate regimes, when we need a competitive devaluation treaty. It is a centralising treaty, when we need a de-centralising treaty. It is an exclusive treaty because it heightens the barriers and makes it more difficult for other countries to join; we need a looser relationship. The treaty is unworkable, but we still have to ratify it.
  We have had 26 days of fiddling, fudging and fantasising to implement a treaty that is technically dead. I shall vote against it because the process discredits Parliament and the consequences of the treaty, if implemented, would hit most severely the section of the community whose interests I was elected to advance and whose cause I was elected to support. I shall vote against the treaty to try to re-establish some honour and integrity for the Labour party, as its position lacks those characteristics at present. I hope that a majority of those Labour Members who are free to think and vote for themselves will vote against it. Above all, I shall vote against the treaty because it gives away powers that are not
  454
  ours to give as Members of Parliament. Those powers belong to the people, and it is essential to let the people speak on the issue.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: As we come to a final decision, the House should not forget that there are deep feelings in the country about our relationship with Europe, particularly the Maastricht treaty. I was greatly influenced by the second world war. My grandfather's generation was decimated by the first world war and my father's generation was decimated by the second world war. I have always felt reluctant, in my heart, to vote for European legislation that has come before the House in the past 23 years. However, I have always gone along with it on the basis of my belief that it would not be of great benefit to my generation, but might benefit my children and grandchildren.
  There are two fundamental reasons why I shall support the Government in the Lobby. The first relates to the conflict in western Europe. I believe that we have reached the point of no return—never again should there be a major conflict between the nations of western Europe. Those in the House who remember war know the enormous price that this nation paid in losing a significant percentage of two fine young generations in this century. If we have to pay some price and make some sacrifice to ensure that that never happens again, we should do so.
  I also believe that the House has no right to deprive our grandchildren of making decisions about the future of Europe. If I believed that tonight's vote was totally about being for or against a united states of Europe or a federal Europe, I would go into the No Lobby. I do not believe that that is the position tonight—it will be in the future. It will be for another generation to make that decision at another time. My children and grandchildren's generations have the right to make that choice because it will affect their lives far more than the rest of my life.
  I shall go into the Lobby reluctantly and with no enthusiasm. The next four years for Europe will be critical, not just for this country, but for the other European countries, many of whose populations have shown considerable reservations about Maastricht. Those reservations were shown by the closeness of the French referendum. The opinions that I hear time and time again in the Council of Europe, on which I have the privilege to serve, have shown me clearly that there are growing doubts about how far Europe should advance towards federalism or a united states of Europe. In the next four years, Europe will have to prove that it can get the balance right between democracy and the institutions that have grown up in Europe. If we do not get it right, and if in a few years the British people are not satisfied, they may well say to Parliament, "So far and no further."
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Bowden) has outlined the classic case for reluctantly voting yes tonight. We have heard the arguments for many years, but there is one major flaw in what he said—if we give the Bill a Third Reading, I do not believe that his children or grandchildren or the children or grandchildren of any hon. Member will have the choice of which he speaks, because

  455
  the members of both Front Benches are reneging on the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy as we know them.
  I fear that the choice will not exist in economic terms. My hon. Friends have proved that we shall be in an economic straitjacket. Instead of the law enabling the markets to operate for the benefit of all, European law will have as its purpose the creation of markets and their regulation. The high priests will be the members of the Commission, dancing around the golden calf of the markets.
  The same is true of the agendas of the various councils in which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been involved. The Secretary of State, whoever he may be, will find that he has to deal with a wide range of subjects, not only foreign affairs. It will be a question not of the pillars supporting the central European Economic Community that was, but of a single edifice. It is no use saying that there will be only one policy.
  We recall the Foreign Secretary talking about Croatia not so long ago. He said that a single policy had already been agreed and, but for that policy, Germany would have recognised Croatia a little sooner and we a little later. There may be a single policy, but it can be the wrong one. Everyone to whom I speak knows that that recognition led to some of the things that we see now.
  Perhaps the nations involved and the aid agencies do not realise that if the Bill is passed we shall have a single overseas development policy, not an aid policy but a development policy based on the mercantilist selfishness of the European Community. Who can pretend that, in that so-called intergovernmental pillar, there is a distinction between the creation of a single market, the external Community policy for commerce and a common external tariff, a common foreign and security policy and a common defence policy? They move together in a single edifice.
  I shall conclude because I may be the last person to speak against the Bill on the subject of citizenship. When Big Ben strikes at midnight in a few weeks, hours or months, we shall, willy-nilly, become citizens of the European union, as will the electors who sent us here. We shall become citizens of the European union without their permission and without receiving any mandate at the election. They will be subject to doubts and obligations and Parliament will be subject to the courts of the European Community, as will the Crown. This could be the end of British parliamentary democracy as we know it. There is no reason for the Minister of State to laugh, because that is what some of us fear.
  I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that, in a few years, if a student asks a tutor whether the British constitution, the freedom of the subject and parliamentary democracy were undermined for constitutional reasons, the answer will be no. The next question will be whether there was a mandate from the people, and the answer from members of both Front Benches will again be no That is why many of my colleagues will be voting no tonight.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: This debate —which has achieved in breadth what the Committee stage achieved in depth—has been marked by two features. First, it has been characterised by the humorous, wide-ranging and eloquent speeches of some of the most
  456
  senior Members in the House; secondly, it has been notable for the humorous, wide-ranging and eloquent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler).
  Following a year in which the name of a town called Maastricht has been heard throughout the House, it was good for us to hear something about the town of Milton Keynes. The hon. Gentleman showed detailed knowledge, a healthy scepticism about the political process, a broad vision of what needs to be done and a sense of humour. I particularly liked his reference to the road that had been started under the Roman empire, and had been completed in the last year—courtesy, no doubt, of the European regional development fund. His basic view is, I think, shared throughout the House: those of us who support greater European co-operation do so primarily because of the threat to peace that lasted for so much of this century, and the knowledge that European co-operation can help to prevent future war.
  As the Opposition have made clear—not just on Third Reading, but throughout the Committee stage—we support the Maastricht process because we believe that co-operation, rather than isolationism, is the best way forward in economic policy. We believe that the single market requires the countervailing institutions of a Community; and we believe that, if we are to achieve the high levels of growth in employment and investment that we and the rest of Europe need, international co-operation is essential in an increasingly global economy.
  Indeed, we believe that what is new and pressing is the need for the growing international competition between great trading blocs, and especially the high level of growth now being achieved by the Pacific rim countries, to be met by greater co-operation within Europe. Without that co-operation, Britain risks being left behind, losing inward investment and losing British company investment to mainland Europe. It may cease to be the financial centre of Europe.
  We also believe that the cohesion fund, majority voting on the environment and the advances on regional and social policy are good for Britain and Europe. However, we cannot and will not vote for a Bill that denies Britain the benefits of a social chapter. The opt-out clause negotiated by the Government is retrograde, perverse and backward-looking: it is a piece of Government dogma which, as everyone knows, is designed not to unite the country, but simply to unite the Conservative party for the time being—even at the expense of dividing the country. If the Foreign Secretary was really serious about searching for consensus on these great issues of Europe, he should support the social chapter rather than oppose it.
  This is our argument. It is absolutely clear that—when we need to use the benefits of international co-operation to strengthen the British economy; when, even now, we should be building, post-Maastricht, a European investment, employment and industrial strategy that would assist Britain—the Government are refusing to consider measures that are essential to achieve that, both at home and in Europe. I refer not just to economic co-operation, but to the benefits provided by a Community through the social chapter.
  I believe that, after the long discussion to which the Bill has been subjected, the most important thing is for

  457
  European co-operation in relation to industry, employment and growth—long-term growth for the future—to be assisted by new measures originated in Britain, and hopefully acceptable in Europe.
  As my hon. Friends are aware, we have presented proposals for new and flexible interpretations of the public expenditure criteria in the treaty, answering the criticisms of the current criteria. It is sad that the Government have refused to act, or to say anything about our proposals. We have pressed for greater investment expenditure to be available to the European investment bank, answering calls made not just in Britain but throughout Europe for joint European action. Unfortunately, the Government have done the least that they could get away with. In our new document on Europe, we have pressed for a substantial reform of the common agricultural policy. Sadly—even after all the Government's boasts about the CAP reforms that they have achieved it will still cost more next year than last year, and it is costing more this year than last year. The substantial reform for which we asked has not been achieved.
  We have presented proposals for action against speculation in Europe, to reform the exchange rate mechanism and to place a growth and regional strategy side by side with it. I understand that, despite all the talk of the changes needed in the ERM, the Government have not advanced any real proposals to the European monetary authorities that are debating the matter on Friday.
  Perhaps the Chancellor will be prepared to tell us whether he now supports the principle of a managed exchange rate and whether it is true that he proposed to the Cabinet that we should not re-enter the ERM at any point during this Parliament.
  We have also put forward proposals that would enhance the power of ECOFIN, strengthening its institutions and building on their responsibilities under the treaty as laid down and debated within Europe. But the Government have done nothing; they have not even supported the French proposals that would increase the accountability of the European institutions through the role of ECOFIN.
  We have made proposals for a joint industrial policy at a European level, which would tackle the problems revealed only a few days ago by a report which said that, among 5,000 European companies, Britain alone was cutting overall investment in research and development, and that among all the countries we had the biggest slowdown in training expenditure. Yet the Government have again resisted any attempt to secure the co-operation necessary for the advances in industry that we need.
  Perhaps even more worrying is the fact that, while we have pressed for a tougher regional policy, concentrating especially on the small and medium-sized firms that will be at the heart of any economic revival that we can achieve, I have here a letter from the European Commission showing that Britain is not even bothering to pick up the money committed to it by the European regional authorities.
  There is now an outstanding sum of £900 million that Europe is ready to commit to projects in Britain, but, because of our delays and our inability to collect, or even to apply for, many of those resources, we are not helping
  458
  many of the depressed areas in this country. Yet Britain has the most to gain from advancing on that front, since of all the major countries in Europe we have suffered the biggest fall in business investment during the recession years from 1990 and the biggest fall in employment, the biggest rise in unemployment, and the largest fall in manufacturing output.
  When the Chancellor sums up, I should like him to confirm that in December, far from supporting the full and complete policy for growth discussed at the European summit, he thwarted a £200 million training initiative that would have helped people in Britain. Will he also tell us what the Government's attitude is to the new unemployment initiative being proposed in Europe? Does it make sense to lose British jobs and to fail to support European initiatives that would create jobs, simply as a means of holding the Conservative party together in some anti-European crusade? The Chancellor is holding back the job prospects of many people in Britain.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Department of Trade and Industry has within its doors a report that reveals the difficulties that the British economy faces. Investment in skills is up to 40 per cent. below the level in Europe and in the rest of the world; productivity is 30 per cent. below, and manufacturing investment is up to 100 per cent. below, the level in the rest of the world.
  Our complaint against the Government is not only that they are unclear about future policy, but that, far from promoting the real policy measures for co-ordination and co-operation to achieve growth and employment in Europe, they threaten to thwart them in just about every forum in which they are involved.
  Mr. Shore: I have listened with interest to what my hon. Friend has said, but is there not a large element of wishful thinking in the various propositions that he has advanced? They are all about getting Europe to do things, yet far from those propositions being in the treaty in its present form, precisely the opposite propositions are in the treaty. The treaty is about not growth but deflation. That is at its heart and my hon. Friend should address that problem.
  Mr. Brown: I respect my right hon. Friend's contributions both to this debate and to many others, but I believe that he has misunderstood article 2 of the Maastricht treaty, which states clearly that the aims are growth and employment. Indeed, written into the treaty are proposals for an industry policy for Europe, a technology policy for Europe and a training and skills policy for Europe. With regard to the public expenditure criteria, I believe that my right hon. Friend would agree that the Labour party has led the way in calling for a flexible examination and assessment of the spending criteria. It is interesting that we are now receiving support from other countries in Europe—[Interruption.]
  The Minister of State, who I believe is attending one of his last debates as a Minister, says, "Greece." Only the other day, the Belgian Finance Minister who will take over the presidency of European Finance Ministers said exactly what we have been saying for many months. It is wrong, in the circumstances in which the Government now find themselves, to say that a flexible interpretation of the spending rules is not to the benefit of Britain and Europe if we are to achieve the growth initiative we want.
  If we are to solve the investment, technology and research gap that not only exists between ourselves and the

  459
  rest of Europe but which is growing between Europe and the rest of the world, common action in those areas and greater co-operation as proposed in the treaty is not only to the benefit of Europe but is particularly to the benefit of Britain. I find it difficult to understand why, as a matter of ideology, the Government insist on rejecting proposals that would assist the British economy and growth in the European area, particularly when we shall face growing competition with the Pacific rim in future years.
  Mr. Winnick: Article 104c contains two and a half pages of steps that should be taken to achieve convergence, while another protocol refers to 3 per cent. Does not that mean that, however flexible a Labour Government—I am not referring to a Tory Government—may be, the fact remains that it is in the treaty? Is my hon. Friend aware that steps that I hope a Labour Government would want to take would be vetoed under article 104c? That is one of many reasons why some of us are determined to vote against the Bill.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has a long record of contributing to debates on this issue. I can best answer his question by quoting what the treaty says on that subject:
  "The commission shall also take into account whether the Government deficit exceeds Government investment expenditure, and shall take into account all other relevant factors, including the medium-term economic and budgetary position of the Member State."
  If that does not allow for the flexible interpretation about which we have been talking, I do not know what does.
  The Chancellor should be interested in the measures that we propose for greater co-operation to achieve employment growth and industrial investment because of what has been happening to the British economy during his period in office. The right hon. Gentleman has been in some difficulty in recent years, having lost the support of many newspapers. Indeed, I find it difficult to think of any newspapers that support him. The Sun supported him, then opposed him, supported him again but now opposes him. He has lost a great deal of Conservative party support in the country.
  On Monday this week, in a document from the Royal Bank of Scotland, we found that the right hon. Gentleman had lost the support even of his former Treasury adviser, a gentleman who was at the Department from 1989 to 1992. What the aptly named Mr. Warwick Lightfoot said must give the Chancellor scope to think not only of what he should be doing to improve the British economy but of what he should be doing to improve our economy through measures taken in Europe as well.
  "No mechanism for achieving the inflation objective has been established"—
  said Mr. Lightfoot.
  "Demand growth over any recovery will outstrip supply potential… Potential output has been harmed by the recession to a very great extent… Much of the fiscal deficit is permanent."
  Mr. Lightfoot seemingly knows the department and dimension of the hole in the Government's affairs that the Home Secretary described—[Interruption.] I am quoting what was said by an adviser to the Treasury until only a few months ago. He went on:
  "Little growth will be possible before the economy comes up against inflation and balance of payments constraints. The danger is that the continuation of stop-go policies will do further long-term damage to the growth potential of the United Kingdom economy."
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Yesterday's man.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may be thinking of what Mr. Lightfoot said about the Chancellor, the Chancellor being yesterday's man. Mr. Lightfoot added:
  "We are forced to conclude that the United Kingdom is once again embarked on a roller coaster of stop-go economic policies which will do long-term harm to the growth potential of the United Kingdom economy."
  If that were not enough, what about the comments of the Financial Secretary? I do not think that people have realised the significance of the speech that he made only a few days ago. He said—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) should listen to what a Minister of the Crown has said about the policies pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, Conservative Members usually want to hear what Ministers have said, but they do not seem to want to today.
  The Financial Secretary said:
  "Think back six years ago"—
  the time when the Prime Minister became Chief Secretary and the Chancellor joined the Treasury.
  "The yuppy revolution was in full swing, but it was built on sand. The wheeler-dealer was the man of the moment. The best returns were to be found in trading financial assets."
  Mr. Nigel Forman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat here throughout almost the whole debate and I have enjoyed it, but we have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for 17 minutes and I do not believe that he has mentioned the Bill once.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Opposition spokesman has clearly been addressing the wider issues of Maastricht.
  Mr. Brown: I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, referring to the Government's economic mismanagement, which spills over into everything that they do, especially into how they see their future in Europe.
  The Financial Secretary concluded, speaking of companies at that time:
  "Far from being sure-fire winners, many were in fact sure-fire losers. We can see them today marked by 'to let' boards. The resources that were attracted like moths to a lamp-bulb to the lure of easy money are resources that have been wasted. We are talking about the misallocation of resources in our economy."
  I maintain that the social chapter and the Government's other moves on public expenditure show that their vision of the British economy, in Europe and elsewhere, is that of a low-tech, low-skill, low-employment and low-wage economy. That was summed up best by the advertisement whose authorship no Minister has ever denied. Placed in Germany by the DTI, it is called for people to invest in Britain because of the low wages there.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman has told us a great deal about Government policy, but will he turn his mind to the impact of the Maastricht treaty on the treaty of union between Scotland and England, and to the fact that economic, fiscal and monetary decisions will be given away to Europe? Why does he think it right to hold a referendum on how we vote to elect Members to this place but wrong that the Scottish people should have a say in what happens to the agreement of 1707?
  Mr. Brown: We had a referendum on Europe in 1975. Everyone knows that it conclusively showed what public opinion was.
  This debate has been going on in the House for many weeks and views on both sides of the argument have been expressed. I believe that we need co-operation in Europe to achieve high employment and a high-growth economy. Instead, the Government have landed themselves in the position of having to opposed the social chapter.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way again, as I have only a few moments left.
  Conservative Members must face up to the truth. We have had four years of propaganda directed against the social chapter. Virulent allegations have been made about it almost every day and every month. There were claims that union militancy would explode as a result, that thousands of jobs would be lost and so on. The campaign must have cost the Conservative party millions of pounds, particularly during the European elections—yet, after all that, they have gained hardly a single convert to their cause.
  I can think of no other country in Europe which now supports the Government's position on the social chapter. I can think of no country applying to enter the European Community which supports their views on the social chapter. 1 can think of no other party in Europe, apart from the French fascist party, which has given support to the Government's position on the social chapter. Even Conservative MEPs have not even been able to persuade all the Conservative group in the European Parliament to go along with them.
  At the Edinburgh summit last December, everone recognised that far from gaining support as a result of what has happened over the past few years, far from people saying that Britain was right, the conclusions of the presidency on 12 December were that the Commission would proceed with the directives on the social chapter and not vary from its course of action.
  When the social chapter covers the free movement of workers, principles of equal treatment, fair remuneration, improved living and working conditions and social protection on rules and practices proper to each country, is not the proper way to deal with objections to the social chapter to work with the principle and then change the detail rather than oppose the principle and allow other countries to set the detail?
  When the effect on the British people of abandoning the charter and opting out is to deny us benefits of the social action programmes that now cover 6 million part-time workers, fair and equal treatment for women at work, protection for young people, the right to minimum holiday leave and better information for employees, is not the intelligent position to ensure that the rights of these vulnerable people are protected by signing up to the charter in principle and then participating constructively in the discussions if we want to change it?
  Let us be clear that the rules will affect British workers indirectly, if not directly, because they will affect British companies in other countries and will be applied by foreign companies in Britain. There will be rules and directives which British companies, Commissioners, trades unions
  462
  and MEPs can discuss, but only the Government have contrived that, when the Council of Ministers is considering them, there will be an empty chair for Britain.
  Far from these provisions adding to the social cost, they would enhance the economic efficiency of the British economy. Our failure to realise that our future depends on investment in the skills and well-being of our employees is at the heart of the Conservative failure to cope with the problems of the British economy. Let us remember that over the past few years all the objections that the Conservative party says were so integral to their opposition to the social chapter have virtually collapsed under the pressure of detailed argument.
  For example, they said that it would mean strikes and lock-outs, but even their own briefing document for debates in the House of Commons says that the social chapter excludes pay, the right to association, the right to strike and the right to impose lock-outs.
  The director of social affairs at the employers' organisation—the Foreign Secretary was prepared to quote him—says:
  "There is a clear understanding that it cannot be used in any way in laws relating to strikes or unions and in any event we would not agree to any agreement which had such effect."
  Far from its being the charter that Conservative Members have tried to convince the country about without any great success, the social chapter lays down clearly what it involves.
  In regard to the works council directive, hon. Members should pause to note that the President of the Board of Trade, who the Prime Minister has charged with relations with industry, said that there should be legislation for companies with more than 500 employees to conduct a dialogue with their work force. He said:
  "this Government will never sign the social chapter."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 170.]
  That was no off-the-cuff remark, or throwaway comment. It was a deliberate statement. Had he cleared it with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary? If he had, why is it that when the Foreign Secretary was challenged to endorse what the Chancellor said, he signally refused to rise to his feet?
  We know that there is opposition in the Cabinet to the position that the Chancellor has held on these as on other matters. We know that the President of the Board of Trade, as has been said today, supports the social chapter. We also know that if the Chancellor holds to the view that the Government will not, under any circumstances, sign the social chapter, he will create a major difficulty for the Government if, at the time of the vote next month, the House votes that it cannot ratify the treaty without the social chapter. When the Chancellor replies to the debate, he had better tell us what he proposes to do.
  Our view on these matters is that, while we support the Maastricht process, we are not prepared to support a Bill that continues to exclude the social chapter from British law. Is it not the case that it has been the role of the Conservative party throughout the ages to restrict progressive legislation that would help employees? That is why it opposes the social chapter. I urge—I urge the Chancellor to change his mind about the social chapter because if he does not, the British people will eventually change his mind for him.
  9.36 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): Every hon. Member will have noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was lost for the last line of his speech. He could not bring himself to utter the words, "I urge my hon. Friends to abstain," although that was what he meant. Throughout much of his speech, the hon. Gentleman did not mention the word Maastricht. He tried to turn it into a general debate on the economy. If he wants such a debate, let us have one. Let him table a motion and we shall debate it and defend our position, as we have done again and again.
  We are now drawing to the end of what has been an important and passionate debate, which that has aroused controversy and strong feelings not just in the House but across the continent. The House has spent hundreds of hours looking at every detail of the Bill. I have noticed that some people in Europe have been somewhat frustrated, if not annoyed, at the pace of our progress, but we do not owe them any apologies. It is right that we should deliberate carefully on a treaty of such importance, and it is also right that the final decision should be taken here in the House.
  Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lamont: In a minute. I agree with what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West said about the quality of speeches that we have heard, including that from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
  In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on a remarkable and excellent maiden speech. I am sure that all who heard it found it highly entertaining, not least because of his descriptions of the late Robert Maxwell's legacy and of the roundabouts in his constituency. He struck a note for many when he said—I know that he was speaking for some of my hon. Friends—that he accepted rather than welcomed the Maastricht treaty. He gave us a salutary reminder when he said that our trade and interests are not just in Europe but in the wider world. He is the last of the new Members of Parliament to make a maiden speech, but it was a pleasure deferred and we look forward to hearing him again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said that he strongly felt that, after the debate was over, there should be no continuing recriminations in our party, and I strongly agree with him. We must all recognise that there have been strong feeling on both sides of the House and people have legitimate feelings and every reason to put their views. Recriminations will have to be put aside. As my hon. Friend said, what we are deciding affects the future of the country. It is of profound importance, but it is not a decision about whether we want to join a federal Europe. We do not want to join a federal Europe, and that is not the kind of Europe that the Maastricht treaty will create. The first draft of the treaty, which was produced by the Dutch, included a federal goal, but that draft was rightly rejected.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, the argument in Europe is now turning in our direction, and it has been doing so since the Maastricht process began. Even in Germany today, there are growing doubts about the social chapter and even about monetary union and a single currency. My right hon. Friend said that we should seize the opportunity, and
  464
  how right he is, because we have never had a better chance to lead Europe in the direction that we, rather than the federalists, wish to go. That is why the House should ratify the Maastricht treaty. If we do not, we shall effectively place ourselves at the margins of Europe's affairs, cut off, devoid of influence, and leaving the field to those who are pursuing an entirely different agenda.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) said, there are elements of the Community that we do not like, such an excessive regulation, the waste, bureaucracy and the expense of the common agricultural policy. The Government also abhor the job-destroying social chapter.
  Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman and other Ministers have laid great emphasis on the decision being taken by the House of Commons. If the Government fail to get half the Members of the House to vote for the treaty, would that be regarded as the full-hearted consent that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), a former Prime Minister, wanted, and would the Chancellor be able to go to his European colleagues and say, "That justifies ratification of the treaty"?
  Mr. Lamont: I am absolutely certain that we shall have a substantial majority, and that is what matters. The hon. Gentleman has made his case for a referendum. It was debated, put to the House and rejected, and the right hon. Gentleman should accept that.
  By ratifying the Maastricht treaty, we shall maintain a voice and we can fight for the Europe that we want while keeping crucial decisions in our own hands. The House should remember that at Maastricht we signed a treaty that was very different from the one signed by other countries. It leaves us out of the social chapter, which is potentially the most damaging part of the treaty, and it gives us a separate decision over a single currency. That is of great importance.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Lamont: I want to reply to some of the points made in the debate.
  We may all have our own views about monetary union, about whether it is likely in the short term or desirable in the longer term, but we cannot ignore the simple fact that many others in Europe want it to happen. The attempt to bring into being a single currency carries obvious risks, one of which is that we may become locked into a single European monetary policy that is wholly inappropriate to our economy. If that happened, we would be on a slippery slope, because pressures would grow for huge transfers of resources across the Community, and there would be calls for even closer political union.
  That is why the Government were simply not prepared to sign up to a single currency now. Our protocol, which I negotiated, gives this country complete freedom of manoeuvre for the future. If we ratify the treaty, it will allow us to take part in all the discussions and negotiations about a single currency, but it will not commit us to join one. It explicitly gives the House a separate decision about joining a single currency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said that, if we kept that option open, the pressure would be so great that we would be forced to join a single currency. If my hon. Friend really believes that the arguments against a single currency are so overwhelming, surely he cannot oppose

  465
  merely keeping the option open until we have to make a decision, at which time the argument can be considered on its merits and my hon. Friend can put his case. I understand his anxiety, but if the case against is so strong it cannot be right to foreclose all options.
  The choice before us is simple. We are not being asked whether we want to join a single currency. That is a question for later, and it is provided for in the protocol. The question for now is whether, if a currency union is established on the continent, this country should have the right to seek to join if the House so wishes, after a separate Act of Parliament has gone through the House. I simply fail to understand how British sovereignty would be enhanced if we forwent that right which was negotiated at Maastricht and is enshrined in the United Kingdom protocol.
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend explain how much influence we have exerted over the arguments about the so-called fault lines in the ERM as a result of the ECOFIN report? Will he also explain how much influence we can exert in stage 2, when the Governor of the Bank of England can neither seek nor be given instructions by the Government when he is a member of the European Monetary Institute.
  Mr. Lamont: If my hon. Friend will give way, I shall come to those points.
  Securing our protocol was a real negotiating success. It is really quite remarkable that the Labour party still opposes it. If the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had his way, we would not have any choice—once we passed the Bill, if we fulfilled the convergence criteria we would be sent straight down the road to a single currency. We do not know today what the prospects for the single currency will be, we cannot predict all its implications and we do not know who will be in it. However, that does not bother the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he would board the train no matter who was on it, no matter where it was going. Quite simply, he would be prepared to drive the economic and political future of the nation into the buffers.
  During this long debate, questions have been raised about the nature of stage 2 of monetary union. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate asked whether we were taking on some onerous obligations. There have been many controversies surrounding the Bill, but one thing is quite certain—the worries expressed about stage 2 are misplaced. Throughout the negotiations, I believed that in stage 2 it was essential that economic and monetary policy should remain firmly in national hands. That was our negotiating objective and that was what we achieved.
  Whether or not a single currency is established, and whether or not we choose to join, the economic goals represented in the convergence criteria are objectives that we should all share—low inflation, sound finances and low budget deficits. Those are the economic objectives that the Government has been pursuing for almost a decade and a half. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said, under stage 2—or, indeed stage 3 if we do not participate in it—there is no question of our being legally bound to achieve them or being penalised in any way if we do not.
  466
  I have been a little surprised by some of the anxiety that my hon. Friends have identified relating to budget deficits and the provisions applying to them. The Conservative party believes in sound finance and low deficits. Nothing in the treaty interferes with the sovereignty of the Government of this country in monetary and fiscal matters in stage 2. However, the treaty does allow for the Council of Ministers to monitor in stage 2 how countries are progressing with economic convergence, but that is not the same as imposing penalties or being able to compel countries to pursue particular policies. Of course it is irksome when international organisations express opinions about our affairs, but that has been going on for decades—through the OECD, the G7, the IMF and the European Community.
  On the prospects for EMU and the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), the past 12 months have been a setback for those who wish to see an early march to a single currency. As well as sterling's departure from the ERM, there have been three devaluations within the ERM by Spain; two by Portugal; one by Ireland; and one devaluation by Italy within the ERM, followed by the lira's exit from the system. That leaves aside countries such as Sweden, Finland and Norway, which were forced to break their links with the ERM.
  In all, no fewer than eight countries had their policies overthrown last September. All that puts paid to the idea, held on the Opposition Benches, that last September was somehow an event unique to Britain.
  I come now to the exchange rate mechanism and I want to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir. P. Tapsell) during Prime Minister's questions. Let me make it crystal clear. There is no obligation, in the convergence criteria or anywhere else in the treaty, to make Britain rejoin the ERM. There was pressure to include such an obligation in the treaty; I was wholly opposed to that and I successfully resisted it.
  The only obligation to join the ERM is if a country wants to go to stage 3 of monetary union, in which case it has to be a member of the narrow bands of the ERM for two years before moving to stage 3.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I am answering my hon. Friends.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our position on the ERM yesterday. The Government will not even begin to contemplate rejoining the ERM until Britain's economy is more in step with the rest of Europe. Above all, that means that economic conditions in Germany and Britain will need to be much more closely in line than they are now. After the great boom caused by reunification, the German economy is now moving even deeper into recession, while the British recovery is strengthening. So the needs and objectives of monetary policy are quite different.
  It is impossible to predict how long it will take for the German economy to adjust fully to the massive strains caused by reunification. It may take two years, three years or longer, but until it does, it would not be appropriate for us to contemplate joining the ERM. It would not be in our economic interests and the Government will not do it.

  467
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made the point that passing the treaty will give Britain and the Government a real opportunity to influence the future debate in the Community. Subsidiarity is only the beginning. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) has said in previous debates about taxation matters and retaining the fiscal sovereignty of the House. But we must push subsidiarity to the top of the agenda at every Council meeting.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, we see a wider Europe, a different Europe, a free trading Europe. Above all, we see a Europe that concentrates on letting the peoples of Europe go about their business of creating the investment, jobs and prosperity that we all want to see, not a Europe of meddling bureaucrats always seeking more power, more influence and more leverage over independent member states.
  Another area of the treaty that has taken up much time in today's debate is the social chapter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking said that in Europe, which is one of the higher unemployment regions in the world economy, employers already face substantial burdens and social costs in competing with other economies, particularly, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East recognised, now that Europe is now in competition with the dynamic new economies of the far east.
  Of course we all want higher living standards, but we have to earn them. We will not get them simply by piling up labour or social costs. We will get them by being competitive, by attracting investment from abroad and by encouraging investment at home.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: The Chancellor said in his Budget statement that the Government will never sign the social charter. Will he confirm what the Foreign Secretary refused to confirm—that that is the Government's policy and that they will never sign it under any circumstances, even in the face of a decision of the House?
  Mr. Lamont: The social chapter is the last thing that Britain or Europe needs. That is why we insisted on our opt out and the treaty that we will ratify will be the one that we negotiated at Maastricht. We put Britain first. We always have and we always will.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister give way'?
  Mr. Lamont: No, sit down.
  What is more, unlike Opposition Members, I do not believe that social policy should be decided in Brussels. I believe that it should be decided in this country and in this House. I know that some of my hon. Friends are concerned that the Commission and other countries will use means other than the social chapter. My hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) made the point that they might use other means to impose obligations and costs on this country. I agree with those of my hon. Friends who complain that the health and safety provisions in the Single European Act have been used in a wholly improper way, to foist on this country laws that we do not want.
  The question before us tonight, however, is not the Single European Act but the Maastricht treaty—and the treaty has a clear-cut protocol that unambiguously takes this country out of the social chapter.
  468
  No one should underestimate the potential threat that the social chapter poses. It is
  "a really worrying attempt by Europe… to try to rebuild in Britain the things that we have dismantled over the past 12 to 15 years."
  [Interruption.] I hear them scoff, but those were the words of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). As usual, he has changed his mind and changed his policy, and tonight he wants to change his vote. But it is clear that no one on the Conservative side of the House would possibly want to put our opt out at risk.
  What about Labour? What is their leader's vision of Europe? He is not even here for tonight's debate. It is quite unfair to say that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East does not have a European policy, because he has three. When it conies to the treaty, he does not know whether he wants to pass it, oppose it or wreck it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, like his predecessor, trots around Europe, posing for photocalls with leaders of other socialist parties, declaring his belief in all things European.
  After the photocall in November, the right hon. and learned Gentleman even signed a communiqué saying:
  "we … hope the process of ratification will be completed as soon as possible without further renegotiation."
  What did he do about it? He voted against the paving motion, called for delay until after the Edinburgh summit, opposed each and every closure motion, and put narrow party advantage above national interest—not just once, but hour after hour, day after day, and week after week.
  Then, in his embarrassment, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to send the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) fumbling around Europe to apologise for their filibustering. The right hon. Gentleman had a meeting with Mr. Cot. I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends remember him. He is the leader of the socialists in the European Parliament.
  On 4 November, the right hon. Member for Copeland told the House that he had personally discussed Labour's position with Mr. Cot and other European socialist leaders and that they fully understood and supported its position. Just three days later, Mr. Cot gave us his side of the story:
  "I must say I was a bit puzzled by Labour's demand to postpone the ratification process in Westminster…stop playing Russian roulette …! This stupid game just isn't funny."
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East likes to boast of his principled stand on Europe. In the endless profiles and interviews in the Sunday newspapers, he always tells how he voted against his party for our entry into the Common Market, and in off-the-record briefings he tells how he has lectured his party on how to be pro-European. Where are his principles now? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Where is his party?
  What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to do tonight with the important question before the House? He is going to take a principled stand on Third Reading. He is going to abstain. He will not be sitting on his rebels—he will be sitting on his hands. That is a pathetic spectacle.
  At the end of the day, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must either be for the treaty or against it. His right hon. and hon. Friends have not been impressed. I wonder whether the House can guess who it was who said that there was a
  "lack of direction … a lack of leadership"?

  469
  It was the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). Who was it who said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's "naive Euro-enthusiasm" had reduced him to an "unparalleled state of impotence"? It was the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). And who called his own Front Bench "disastrous and supine"? It was the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). The Leader of the Opposition cannot convince his party, and he will not convince the country. We shall vote tonight for ratification of the treaty. The position of the Labour party is a hollow sham. We have put our case tonight, and we shall put it to the country as well.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 112.

  Division No. 277]

  [9.59 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

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ancram, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dicks, Terry

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Eggar, Tim

  Bates, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowis, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Burns, Simon

  Freeman, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  French, Douglas

  Butler, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Gallie, Phil

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clappison, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Gorst, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Congdon, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Conway, Derek

  Hague, William

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  470

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hannam, Sir John

  Needham, Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Nelson, Anthony

  Harris, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Paice, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Home Robertson, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rendel, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spring, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  MacKay, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Madel, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sumberg, David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sykes, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

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

  Mills, Iain

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Trend, Michael

  471

  Trotter, Neville

  Whitney, Ray

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tyler, Paul

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Walden, George

  Willetts, David

  Wallace, James

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Ward, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watts, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Knapman, Roger

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Legg, Barry

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Lewis, Terry

  Austin-Walker, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Barnes, Harry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Bendall, Vivian

  Lord, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  McAllion, John

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  McKelvey, William

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Madden, Max

  Body, Sir Richard

  Marlow, Tony

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Butcher, John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Callaghan, Jim

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Mudie, George

  Canavan, Dennis

  Olner, William

  Cann, Jamie

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Parry, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Cash, William

  Pickthall, Colin

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Pope, Greg

  Clapham, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Connarty, Michael

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Redmond, Martin

  Cran, James

  Richardson, Jo

  Cryer, Bob

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davidson, Ian

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Rowlands, Ted

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Simpson, Alan

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Etherington, Bill

  Skinner, Dennis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Fry, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Stevenson, George

  Gerrard, Neil

  Sweeney, Walter

  Gill, Christopher

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Trimble, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Watson, Mike

  Hain, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Hall, Mike

  Wilkinson, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Winnick, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Wise, Audrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jessel, Toby

  Mr. Nigel Spearing and

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Mr. Ron Leighton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Worthing (A27 Bypass)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
  10.12 pm
  Sir Terence Higgins: Some years ago, I had the distinction of running in the athletic race immediately after Sir Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile. I felt a sense of anti-climax, and, following the vote on the Maastricht treaty, I have the same feeling tonight in raising the A27 in Worthing. To many of my constituents, the immediate and perhaps even the long-term impact of what is proposed for the A27 in the Worthing area may be of much greater importance than the Maastricht treaty.
  What should be done about the A27 has been a matter of great controversy for 15 or 20 years, and I have raised the matter with a succession of Ministers in Adjournment debates. I have forgotten to how many Ministers I have had to explain the problem, but I am delighted to see the Minister in his place this evening because he has been kind enough to visit Worthing and examine the situation for himself.
  I have argued throughout for a real bypass for Worthing, not what the Government have proposed—a preferred route, which is a throughpass, not a bypass, and which cuts the town in two.
  Therefore, it is important that, as the matter comes to a climax with a public inquiry, specific issues should be raised, and I am happy to have the chance to do so this evening. There is still much uncertainty about precisely when the public inquiry is likely to take place. If I achieve nothing else, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could give some information on that issue, which is of great interest to my constituents.
  Everywhere along the south coast, apart from Worthing, even quite small villages have or are about to have bypasses. It is wrong that the same should not be true of Worthing. A statement issued not long ago—greeted enthusiastically by my constituents who detected a change of Government attitude—stated that the Government's policy was to take traffic away from towns. The Government's preferred route certainly does not do that.
  When the original proposal of 12 years ago or more was dropped, it became apparent that if something was not done, developments of the A27 either side of Worthing would eventually meet in the middle, and there would be no possibility of a bypass. It therefore became necessary to reopen the issue. At that time, the relevant Minister, now Lady Chalker, was kind enough to give a clear undertaking that a complete study would be made, not only of the preferred route, but of alternative routes which would be genuine bypasses.
  We are in an unusual position—it may be unprecedented. Work has been carried out on the preferred route. In addition, a detailed survey has been conducted into the economics and other aspects of both the preferred route and the bypass. Therefore, the public inquiry and the examiner will be able to look in detail at both proposals. Many of my constituents were concerned that the public inquiry would be able only to say yes or no to the preferred route.
  Therefore, I am happy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that that is not the position. In a letter that I received a few days ago, he said:

  473
  "I am satisfied that the Department was right to look at the preferred route, and the alternative blue and red routes, before draft orders were published. The full traffic, environmental and economic assessment of these routes will be available at the public inquiry to enable the issues to be fully debated, and these alternatives, together with any other alternatives which may be proposed, will be considered by the Inspector."
  The letter continues—this is the crucial passage:
  "I can confirm that the Inspector will be able to make recommendations either to make the draft orders before the inquiry, modified if necessary, or to reject them. In the latter case, he may also recommend that new draft orders are prepared for one of the alternative routes."
  It is important that the inspector should have the option of recommending new draft orders on the basis of a bypass.
  The recent exhibitions setting out the various alternatives were not entirely unbiased, and concentrated on the preferred route rather than the alternatives. The videos run at those exhibitions clearly showed that the damage to the downs done by the preferred route would be significant, particularly in those regions where the downs are most accessible to my constituents. That fact must be clearly brought out.
  Time and again we have had new and specific inquiries into the issues. It has become apparent that the first inquiry suggested that the preferred route would be much more economic in cost-benefit terms than the bypass—I refer to the route north, not south, of Cissbury ring. I cannot find many people in favour of the bypass that passes south of Cissbury ring. It has become apparent that the economics have begun to converge. If one also takes into account the need to run a dual carriageway through Findon valley, the economics may favour a bypass rather than the preferred route.
  I stress that one of the important elements in assessing the preferred route has been the cost of delays which occur where the road is built and which I understand may last for two years or more. I draw the Minister's attention to the Worthing Herald of Friday 30 April. The headline is "Road Chaos in Town" and above it is the lin
  "Fire-fighters face potentially fatal delays in traffic mayhem".
  That is the result of minor changes at the Offington roundabout, which will be the epicentre of the chaos that is likely to be caused by the preferred route. If we proceed with the preferred route rather than the bypass, that will be the shape of things to come. Massive delays have already been caused, some lasting for more than an hour over a matter of only a few hundred yards. I believe that the study of the preferred route has grossly underestimated the costs.
  I wish to concentrate on a particular point rather than the general case which I have already expounded at some length. I am very worried about the impact of this whole affair on my constituents—for example, in terms of the valuations placed on properties bought under blight notice. If the value is disputed, the individual can reject it only by going to the Lands Tribunal, which is a very expensive business. If the matter is not resolved in the individual's favour, he will have to bear very heavy costs which are likely to far outweigh any improvement in the terms that he might get. Such a bias against being able to appeal against false valuations is very unfortunate.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Although my right hon. Friend's constituents and my constituents have very different views on the route, which we do not have time to
  474
  discuss in detail this evening, perhaps my right hon. Friend will accept that we agree on one issue, which is that public money should be spent on compensating the affected constituents rather than on remunerating lawyers for interminable public inquiries.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is also worried about his constituents who will be affected by the road, that compensation is important. Although we improved the matter in 1991, compensation is still inadequate.
  In a sense, what I am about to say goes against the main case that I am making, but what worries me in particular is the way in which the Department has declined to buy property which is just off the proposed preferred route. Clearly, as properties are bought, the number of protesters against the preferred route may diminish, but I nevertheless believe that the Department has adopted a very harsh attitude to the buying of property very near the preferred route from people who wish to move for many reasons, ranging from medical problems, a change of job or even a divorce.
  The Minister has tended to say that the Department will consider only properties that are within 100 m of the centre line of the road which, in some cases, may be four lanes or more wide. That is far too close. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the figure of 100 m was reached, because, in view of the noise and chaos likely to be caused by the road works, such property is likely to be seriously affected even during construction.
  Frankly, it is wholly unrealistic for my hon. Friend to say, as he has in his many letters to me about several cases that I have raised with him, that if people live more than 100 m from the centre of a four-lane road, their enjoyment of their home will not be significantly affected. I do not think that that argument can be sustained, and I feel that my hon. Friend the Minister should take a more sympathetic attitude.
  Of course, the number of such cases is now diminishing; as I said earlier, a decision is likely within the next 18 months or two years, and, if the project goes ahead, the road will not be built for a further two or two and a half years.
  Let me select an example at random. In a letter, my hon. Friend the Minister has stated:
  "The decision on whether the enjoyment of a property is seriously affected by a road scheme is a matter entirely for the Department's discretion based on the facts of each case. As you know, as a guideline we have said that we would normally expect qualifying properties to be within about 100 metres from the centre line of the proposed road."
  In my view, that gives far too much discretion—with no right of appeal—to people who may have important reasons for feeling that they must sell their properties, and are clearly unable to do so in the present circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a more sympathetic line on the outstanding cases than the line that he has adopted in the past.
  My hon. Friend has suggested that certain people—in particular, members of the the British Legion—can be moved to temporary accommodation while the road is being built. That does not take account of the type of person, or the age groups, involved in this case.
  I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us more about the timing, and, more particularly, about the basis on which he adopted the 100 m criterion—which, as I have said, I consider entirely wrong. I also hope that he will take a

  475
  more sympathetic attitude. People who would like to remain in their homes because they believe, as I do, that the bypass will eventually be built and that the preferred route will not go ahead feel that they are being driven out of their homes, because many of the rented properties have been occupied by people who have proved extremely unsatisfactory and unpleasant tenants. They feel that they are being driven out for the reason that I have mentioned: I believe that there will eventually be a bypass, and I shall continue to do everything I can to bring that about.
  10.27 pm
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is a great honour to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). I am delighted that he has secured this debate: he has been an admirable debater and fighter for his constituency, and this is the third Adjournment debate that he has secured on the subject of the bypass.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned his athletic ability. He has also shown great endurance in his campaign. I know that, in his youth, he was a well-known sprinter; it is interesting to note that, as he has entered middle age, he has turned into a runner of marathons. However, he has always been determined to represent his constituents, and has put their views unflinchingly.
  I understand the problems faced by many of my right hon. Friend's constituents. Difficulty, uncertainty and discussion are always involved when a road is planned to run through a community, or close to where people live. None the less, I believe that our procedures for road building offer the public considerable opportunities to present their views: in that respect, I think that we are one of the most generous countries in the world.
  As we know, a road programme must first be subjected to public consultation, as this has been. Draft orders are then published and exhibited, and the next stage is a public inquiry. Throughout those procedures, my officials and I —and my predecessor as Minister have tried to be as helpful as possible; I know that my right hon. Friend accepts that. I have always been grateful for the courtesy with which he has pressed his point, despite his having done so with great vigour.
  My right hon. Friend asked about the public inquiry, and I am glad to be able to announce that it will start at 10 am on Tuesday 28 September at the Assembly hall, Stoke Abbott road, Worthing, and will move to the Ardington hotel, Steyne Gardens, on Tuesday 19 October. The inquiry will be conducted by Mr. P. J. Leveridge, an independent inspector appointed by the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment, on the nomination of the Lord Chancellor. The public inquiry will give everyone in Worthing and outside the chance to argue a case, and I know that my right hon. Friend has a formidable array of facts, figures and calculations to put to the inquiry.
  We all accept the need to improve the A27. It is an important major route along the south coast to Chichester and beyond. The road will become a dual carriageway and be brought up to modern standards. It is not the need for the road that is at issue, but the route that it is to take. I know that my right hon. Friend wants an alternative to the north but, as he knows, such a route would not be without difficulty, as it would go through the downs, and it, too, would be opposed by many people, not least by my hon.
  476
  Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). We must all agree that, if nothing were done, conditions in Worthing would deteriorate even further, and would become intolerable.
  My right hon. Friend knows the route well, so there is no need for me to describe it in detail. He can present his case to the public inquiry, but I assure him that we shall take great care to design the road as sympathetically as possible. The scheme involves two tunnels, which is pretty remarkable. The first, a bored tunnel through Lancing ring, will be about 580 m long. The other, of similar length, will be a cut-and-cover tunnel where the route passes through the north of Worthing, in the High Salvington area. The tunnels will provide significant benefits for the environment of the new road.
  Furthermore, we shall use porous asphalt to build the road. That is a remarkable new surface that seems to halve traffic noise, and we now want to use it, whenever suitable, where roads go through towns and other places where people live. We shall also erect extensive amenity barriers and earth mounding. I know that it is important to maintain access to the downs for the people of Worthing, and we intend to do that, too, as far as possible.
  My right hon. Friend talked about his worries about disruption during the construction of the road. I know that that is a continuing concern, which he has raised on several occasions, and I can tell him that extensive traffic management measures will be employed to minimise disruption to traffic. The provision of a temporary highway to the north of the existing A27 Arundel road while a tunnel through High Salvington is constructed will ensure that traffic continues to flow through the area. We shall also ensure that access in the area is maintained at all times.
  Sir Terence Higgins: My hon. Friend mentioned that idea in a letter, and I was puzzled, because the only route that could be taken north of the A27 in the area that he mentioned passes bang through the middle of a cemetery.
  Mr. Carlisle: I understand that such an alternative can be provided, and if my right hon. Friend and I can get together with a map of Worthing, I should like to point it out to him. Obviously we shall consult local people.
  During construction we shall impose strict controls on the contractor to ensure that noise levels agreed with the local environmental health officer are adhered to. There will also be measures to suppress dust wherever that is necessary. We shall make a considerable effort to look after the scheme during construction. We are also keen to maintain proper pedestrian facilities. We are discussing with all the local authorities the provision of adequate pedestrian facilities, particularly in the Offington corner area.
  The provision of a tunnel through the High Salvington area will improve access to the north and south of the A27, as the new local road above the tunnel will be much easier to cross than the existing road. As traffic increases on the existing road, it becomes more difficult to cross. So it is to be welcomed that in that area of Worthing, through traffic, which is the vast majority, will be taken through the area in a tunnel.
  My right hon. Friend has always been concerned about the effect of the road on individuals. Indeed, the way in which it would affect his constituents has been the main

  477
  thrust of his letters to me. He has always sought to put their case and to get proper recognition of their problems. I salute his efforts in that respect.
  I appreciate that, understandably, he wants generous compensation to be paid, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham supports him in that desire. We are constrained by legislation, and the provisions that we make for compensation have been increased substantially in recent years. It may be helpful if I take my right hon. Friend through what is available and answer some of his questions.
  There is, first, statutory blight. If a property is to be physically affected by, or is required for, a scheme, the owner can serve a blight notice and have his house purchased at full market value plus 10 per cent. My right hon. Friend was more concerned about those who were or were not favoured by the new discretionary purchase arrangements which came into operation in 1991. There was at that time a considerable extension of our powers and help that we could give to people affected by road schemes.
  It is a discretion, and of course someone must always exercise it. It is our duty to exercise it not only with the good of the public in mind but with proper provision for the public purse. So we must seek to find a balance, which is what we have tried to do. Before it can be applied, it must be shown that there is a serious effort on the property, and noise is generally taken as the most common nuisance factor. So in making a decision we look first at the question of noise.
  My right hon. Friend questioned whether we should go beyond 100 m. We take 100 m as a guideline because we believe that, within that area, a house is most severely affected. Beyond 100 m, a house becomes increasingly better protected from a new road. But we still examine cases beyond 100 m. If they meet the more rigorous criteria that we apply beyond 100 m, we are happy to use our discretionary powers, and we do so on certain occasions. So we have some discretion.
  478
  Beyond the statutory blight and discretionary powers, we have our section 246 powers which come into effect while the works are in progress and for a year after they have been completed. They are also blight-related, and the powers, and compensation that we can give, take effect when the works begin. If matters were absolutely intolerable for any of my right hon. Friend's constituents while the works were in progress, we would examine those provisions to see whether they would apply.
  There is then compensation after the work has been done. If, for a year after the work has been completed, it is believed that the value of the property has declined, the owner can apply for compensation for loss of value. That would, of course, apply after the road had been built.
  Finally, noise insulation measures will apply, and my right hon. Friend's constituents can seek them in the ordinary way.
  Our aim is to apply this range of measures as sympathetically as possible; to try to do that efficiently and fairly to meet all genuine claims—always on the understanding that we do so with integrity. I know that we will not always be able to please my right hon. Friend or his constituents, but we will do our level best to deal with each case as expeditiously and carefully as possible.
  Lastly, my right hon. Friend asked about the timetable for the road. If all goes well with the statutory procedures, we may be able to start building in the autumn of 1995, and construction would take about two years. It is an ambitious programme, and technically difficult—with two bridges and the route through parts of Worthing, if the public inquiry allows that.
  This is a much-needed road. I know full well that my right hon. Friend will put his case for his constituency at the public inquiry with great intelligence, integrity and perception. Who knows what his advocacy might achieve? Meanwhile, I thank him, and I hope that he will keep in touch with me about all the difficult aspects of this road over the next few months.
  Question pu0t and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Scientific Research (Russia)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assistance the United Kingdom has offered the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology in Moscow.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  British scientists have long had contacts with scientists at the Institute of Organic Chemistry in Moscow, which comes under the Russian Academy of Sciences department of general and technical chemistry. These contacts have developed through assistance for Russian science funded by the Office of Science and Technology and administered through the Royal Society. As an example, Dr. Rakitin of the Moscow institute was awarded a three-month Kapitza fellowship beginning in November 1992 at the department of chemistry, Imperial college, London, in order to initiate United Kingdom/Russia collaboration in the synthesis and chemistry of heterocyclic systems of great importance to the fine chemicals industry.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mediation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the percentage of cases in which mediation leads to an outcome which is more satisfactory to those involved than that of a confrontation in court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has welcomed the growth of private mediation services and he is considering ways in which such services can contribute to his aims of reducing cost, complexity and delay in civil litigation. It is important that alternative methods of dispute resolution, whether inside or outside the court, provide scope to tailor procedures more closely to the needs of disputants. Work at this stage is concentrating on defining these differing needs, rather than attempting to assess accurately disputants' "satisfaction".

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effect of local community mediation services on reducing(a) the cost of legal aid and (b) time spent in court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Any alternative methods of resolving disputes which are more economical for the taxpayer, while being speedier and simpler to use by parties to a dispute, would be welcomed. The effect of the introduction of a new system of dispute resolution on the cost of legal aid is something that would have to be considered when developing and implementing a new 234
  scheme. As many of the disputes referred to community medication would not, otherwise, have reached the courts, it is not possible to assess reliably the effect on court time of such services.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Falklands
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Defence of 29 March,Official Report, columns 15–16, if he will make a statement on the current state of his consideration of the conduct of British troops in the Falklands in 1992.

  The Attorney-General
  The investigation referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 29 March 1993 is continuing. The Director of Public Prosecutions will consider what action, if any, is appropriate once the investigation is completed.

TRANSPORT

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Norris
  In response to this question, my Department (including its agencies) has obtained information from the Office of the Data Protection Registrar as follows:

  a total of 40 complaints have been received.

  these complaints are categorised in the Annex according to the Principles set out in the Registrar's Guideline No. 4 booklet.

  None has led to a request from the Registrar for any remedial action.

  In the time available, the additional information requested could be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  Sustainable Development Report
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking and what instructions he has given to prepare a draft paper as a basis for his Department's contribution to the sustainable development report.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Preparation of the sustainable development report is being co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. My officials are currently discussing with the Department of the Environment the format of a consultation paper, which we hope will focus public debate about the preparation of a United Kingdom sustainable development plan.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposals for the privatisation of the British Railways Board's freight businesses.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have today published a document, "Rail Freight Privatisation—The Government's Proposals", which sets out the Government's plans to restructure British Rail's existing freight businesses for privatisation. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and in the Vote Office.

  The key proposals are: to split British Rail's existing trainload businesses into three geographical companies for transfer to private sector ownership; to establish the channel tunnel freight business on a sound commercial footing with the aim of privatisation as soon as possible; to invite proposals from the private sector on the future of the Freightliner domestic and deep-sea container business; and to privatise Rail Express Systems, which carries Royal Mail letter traffic, as soon as practicable.

  The combination of privatisation and open access to the railway network will promote the development of a rail freight industry which is efficient, competitive and responsive to customers' needs.

  Railway Pensions
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has reached final conclusions on the future arrangements for railway pensions after privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have now completed my consultations about the future of railway pensions. I have had very helpful discussions with representatives of pensioners and of contributing members to the railway pension scheme, with the trustees, with the trade unions and with the Railways Board.

  My objective remains to preserve the security of rights enjoyed by pensioners and members while adopting arrangements to suit the new structure of the privatised industry. The proposals I am announcing today meet this objective.

  I have decided that there should be set up, under the powers granted in the Railways Bill, a joint industry pension scheme for the railways. This will be broadly on the basis set out in the consultation paper "Railway Pensions after Privatisation" issued in January. The governance and administration of the joint industry scheme will continue to involve both the employers and employees in the industry. We shall be discussing the detailed arrangements with interested parties. The eventual arrangements will need to reflect the recommendations of the pensions law review committee chaired by Professor Goode.

  Existing employees' rights will be protected by statutory orders made under the Railways Bill. The benefits offered to employees must be no less favourable than those in the existing scheme. There will be no penalties for involuntary breaks in employment. The present schemes under which the employer matches additional voluntary contributions made by employees (BRASS schemes) will continue subject to the existing right of the employer to withdraw matching for new or increased contributions.
  236
  Employees should be reassured by the statutory protection of these benefits. But I now propose to go further and give those staff serving at Royal Assent an individual right to remain in the joint industry scheme for as long as they are still employed in the railway industry. An amendment to the Bill to secure this "indefeasible" right—on which representatives have placed great importance—will be brought forward in another place.

  There will in addition be specific safeguards, in franchise contracts, to cover the transfer of pension funds when a franchise changes hands.

  In our consultation paper we proposed two possible broad approaches to arrangements for existing pensioners. Option 2 would have involved an appropriate portion of each fund being transferred to the Government, in return for guaranteed index-linked pensions. There was very little support for this option in the consultation. The Government have decided not to proceed with it.

  Instead, Option 1, a closed scheme for railway pensioners with appropriate support by investment, will be set up in due course, which will enable them to participate in any future surpluses there may be. We shall discuss with the trustees and the board the timetable for establishing this scheme taking account of the need to have clear arrangements in place as soon as possible. But we recognise the trustees' need for time to rearrange their investments to secure the pensions of their members. Meanwhile, the pensioners will continue in the BR scheme with the board's remaining employees. Again in response to points made in consultation, I am content for the pensioners' closed scheme to be managed as part of the joint industry scheme, provided that its governance arrangements are satisfactory. This will require further discussion and will again need to reflect the outcome of the Goode committee's recommendations.

  The division of funds between sections of the joint industry scheme and any new schemes will take into account the liabilities of those schemes, and the decisions made by the trusteees following the 1990 actuarial valuation, to improve pension benefits and to reduce contribution rates. The calculations will be subject to independent actuarial advice. These calculations will be carried out in the light of the present valuation of the fund, which is expected to be completed in the autumn.

  The Government will continue to make the contributions to BR pension funds fixed by the Transport Act 1980. The necessary amendments to the 1980 Act to make this possible have been put down for discussion at Report stage.

  Orders for setting up new schemes, transferring funds and protection of existing employees will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. Orders relating to schemes and funds will be the subject of statutory consultation with the trustees.

  It is both natural and right that pensioners, pension scheme members and trustees should express their concerns and seek reassurance about pension arrangements in the privatised railway. The consultation document gave them the opportunity to do so: these decisions address those concerns and provide that reassurance.
  237

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he plans to the coastguard service in north Devon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Steven Norris
  No changes to the coastguard service in north Devon are planned other than those already implemented over the last 12 months under the coastal review.

  Selby Bypass
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost, on completion, of the Selby bypass project now in train; and how much approximately has so far been spent on the project on design work, soil surveys and public inquiries, etcetera.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The current estimated cost of the Selby bypass is £19 million.

  The readily available information shows that £0·8 million has been spent since 1988 in respect of design work, soil surveys and public inquiries.

  Applications for Orders
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what applications he has received in respect of section 6 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, stating for each the date received, the applicant and the nature of the scheme or works and where the public may obtain copies; and what arrangements exist for notifying hon. Members.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. One application has been made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of cooling works for a proposed generating station at South Humber Bank. This was received on 19 April from Humber Power Limited. The draft order disapplies section 6 of the Humber Conservancy Act 1905 in regard to works which are subject to separate consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Copies of the application are available for inspection free of charge at the county hall, Humberside county council, and the civic offices, Cleethorpes borough council. The guide to the new procedures places the responsibility on applicants to notify hon. Members with a constituency interest of applications. In this case I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has been notified of the application.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Seats, Wales
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Boundary Commission will begin its review of parliamentary seats in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that a decision will be made on this matter once an appointment has been made to fill the post of deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission for Wales.

  Replica Guns
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is considering taking against the misuse of replica guns; and if he will make a statement.
  238
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted the advice offered to him by the firearms consultative committee that the range of offences which apply to the misuse of imitation firearms should be extended. This will be implemented at a suitable legislative opportunity.

  Child Deaths
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions during the last five years following the death of a child charges have been brought under(a) section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and (b) sections 18 and/or 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and what sentences, on conviction, were imposed in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  Information in the form requested is not collected centrally.

  Litter Offences
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of the prosecutions brought under the Litter Act 1983 during the most recent period for which statistics are available was successful;

  (2) what was the average fine imposed under the Litter Act 1983 during the most recent period for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Jack
  In England and Wales in 1991 there were 1,450 prosecutions under the Litter Act 1983. Eighty-three per cent. (1,199) of those proceeded against were convicted. The average fine imposed was £55.

  Data for 1992 will not be available until the autumn.

  Royal Family (Bugging)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all occasions where he has given interviews this year to the media on allegations of the bugging of the royal family by security or intelligence services; and if he will place in the Library copies of the available transcripts of his comments on this matter.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I gave interviews to the BBC on Wednesday 12 and Thursday 13 May. If the hon. Member wishes to obtain transcripts he should contact the BBC. I was also questioned about this subject, among others, at a press conference in Edinburgh on 12 May but I cannot provide a transcript of my answers there.

  Burglaries
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many burglaries have been committed within each police authority area of Wales in each year from 1987; how many have been convicted of burglary in each year; and, of those convicted, how many were registered or unregistered drug addicts at the time of the burglaries.

  Mr. Jack
  The information available relates to the recorded offences of burglary in Wales and persons convicted of such offences. A table showing these data is given below. Information on how many convicted burglars are registered or unregistered drug addicts is not available centrally.
  239

  Recorded burglaries and persons convicted of burglary by Welsh police force area 1987 to 1992

  Wales

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Police force

  Recorded offences

  Persons convicted

  Recorded offices

  Persons convicted

  Recorded offences

  Persons convicted

  Recorded offences

  Persons convicted

  Recorded offences

  Persons convicted

  Recorded offences

  Persons convicted

  Dyfed-Powys

  2,942

  364

  3,214

  288

  2,721

  296

  3,419

  341

  4,696

  370

  5,100

  1—

  Gwent

  4,804

  621

  4,170

  530

  3,838

  477

  5,235

  564

  7,477

  530

  8,239

  1—

  North Wales

  9,955

  737

  8,837

  635

  7,387

  551

  8,342

  576

  10,184

  553

  12,472

  1—

  South Wales

  26,493

  1,765

  25,158

  1,443

  25,067

  1,366

  28,121

  1,477

  36,637

  1,610

  38,799

  1—

  Total for Wales

  44,194

  3,487

  41,379

  2,896

  39,013

  2,690

  45,117

  2,958

  58,994

  3,063

  64,610

  1—

  1 Not available yet.

  Female Prisons (Complaints against Male Staff)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male staff members in each of the female prisons has been subject to official complaint for sexual misconduct in each of the past five years; and in how many cases formal disciplinary action was taken.

  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 Mr. D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 May 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about complaints of sexual misconduct made against male staff working in women's prisons in each of the past five years.
  Complaints of harassment or other sexual misconduct, whether made by members of staff or inmates, are dealt with in the first instance at the establishment. If formal disciplinary charges are brought, they may be resolved at the establishment under powers delegated to the governor. Not all records of such cases are retained locally; in fairness to the accused, papers relating to complaints which are dismissed or where the accused in found innocent are destroyed. Only those cases which merit a punishment beyond the scope of the governor's powers would be referred to Headquarters. Cases of proven sexual misconduct would almost certainly fall into this category but we do not have any records which would enable us to state how many such cases had been referred to us in the past five years.
  A Notice to Staff on sexual harassment was issued in 1992 and we have since mid-1991 kept informal records of complaints of sexual (and racial) harassment which are referred to us by area managers, governors and other colleagues. These include complaints by both staff and inmates. We have been able to identify two complaints against male members of staff at women's establishments. In 1991, one complaint of sexual harassment against a male principal officer resulted in a written warning. In 1992 a complaint of sexual harassment against a storeman was found not to be substantiated.
  Further details of other complaints could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Drugs (Confiscation of Assets)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was returned to the Treasury under the confiscation powers of(a) the Drug Trafficking Act 1986 and (b) the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in each financial year since their commencement.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is given in the table:240

  Amount (£) recovered1 by the Secretary of Stale in confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by financial year

  England and Wales

  Year

  Amount recovered £

  Drug Trafficking Offences Act 19862

  1987–88

  600,000

  1988–89

  1989–903

  1,375,200

  1990–913

  1,448,000

  1991–92

  5,384,500

  Criminal Justice Act 19884

  1989–903

  353,700

  1990–913

  437,100

  1991–92

  59,400

  1 The information collected centrally is known to be incomplete as returns were not received from all petty sessional divisions.

  2 Came into force January 1987.

  3 There was some confusion with the recording of information regarding the two Acts during these years. In consequence it is considered that data has been under recorded for the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and over recorded from the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  4 Came into force April 1989.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to the introduction by banks of photo-identity bank cards with a tamper-proof, laser-etched signature as a possible model for the introduction of a universal photo-identity card scheme in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  The introduction of photographs on cheque and credit cards was recommended in the Home Office crime prevention unit paper 26, "Preventing Cheque and Credit Card Fraud", which was published in 1991. I understand, however, that although some banks and building societies have now introduced such cards, including laser-engraved signatures, there is not general agreement among the financial institutions that these provide the most effective way of combatting the problem of fraud.

  The particular technical solutions adopted to tackle cheque and credit card fraud must be a commercial decision which lies with the banks and the retail sector. The Home Office will, however, continue to do what it can to encourage full co-operation and communication between all those bodies which have an interest in tackling this problem.

  The introduction of an identity card scheme is a separate issue, and one which is kept under review. However, the Government are not at present persuaded

  241
  that the benefits of issuing identity cards outweigh the disadvantages and costs. The question of possible models does not therefore arise.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the applicability of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to any future Home Office market testing exercise will be included in relevant documentation as a condition of contract.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. The regulations form part of a statutory instrument and, if applicable, take effect and are enforceable without the need for them to be included in a condition of contract.

  Unit Fines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his estimate of the proportion of cases in which an inappropriate fine given under the unit fine system was(a) too high and (b) too low;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total number of cases in which an inappropriate fine was given under the unit fines system.

  Mr. Jack
  I have no basis on which to make any such estimate.

  Actual fine levels imposed are the responsibility of sentencers.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he had with the Justices Clerks Society on proposals for reforming the unit fine system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  Following the implementation of the unit fine system on 1 October 1992, officials in my Department had a number of discussions with representatives of the Justices Clerks Society about the way in which the scheme was operating and, latterly, about ways in which it might be modified. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated in his statement on 13 May, his conclusion was that the better course was to abolish the scheme altogether. He has since then (17 May) met representatives of the society.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable criminal offences took place in Devon and Cornwall in 1992; and if he will publish separate figures for(a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery, (d) burglary, (e) theft and handling of stolen goods, (f) fraud and forgery, (g) criminal damage and (h) other offences.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the policy by offence group Devon and Cornwall

  Offence group

  1992

  Violence against the person

  3,926

  Sexual offences

  665

  Robbery

  310

  242

  Offence group

  1992

  Burglary

  28,728

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  60,658

  Fraud and forgery

  3,601

  Criminal damage

  15,936

  Other offences

  851

  Total

  114,675

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many front-line customs staff have been employed on anti-drug smuggling duties in the United Kingdom and its waters during each of the last five years.

  Sir John Cope
  I have been asked to reply.

  Front-line resources devoted specifically to passenger and transport control by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise over the past five years are set out in table 1. This is not restricted to drugs enforcement because Customs' frontier controls encompass a number of prohibitions and restrictions. Other staff also contribute to the anti-smuggling effort, including specialist investigators, staff employed on freight and documentary processing and essential support services such as training and prosecutions. Table 2 shows a broad estimate of the total resource devoted to the anti-drugs effort, including such staff.

  Table 1

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Front-line resources devoted to passenger and transport control

  Staff years

  1988–89

  3,600

  1989–90

  3,637

  1990–91

  3,630

  1991–92

  3,558

  1992–93

  3,420

  Table 2

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Resources devoted to anti-drugs effort

  Staff years

  1988–89

  4,700

  1989–90

  4,950

  1990–91

  4,850

  1991–92

  4,800

  1992–93

  5,000

  Note: Resources are counted in staff years rather than staff numbers, to take account of such factors as part-time working and overtime.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Eggs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward legislation to ensure that eggs from battery hens are labelled to make that clear.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Egg Marketing Standards Regulations lay down the terms which may be used to describe egg production systems. The terms include "free
  243
  range" and "perchery (barn)" eggs. Further descriptions are not required by those EC regulations and are not considered necessary.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from farmers on the effect of ploughing up land with the aim of discouraging illegal encampments on elibigility for set-aside payments in respect of that land.

  Mr. Curry
  None. Set-aside fields can be ploughed to create a bare fallow from 1 May. Requests for an exemption from the management rules to plough the margin of a set-aside field earlier than this to help prevent illegal access have been treated sympathetically.

  Integrated Administration and Control
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the timetable of processing IACS forms at each of his Department's regional centres and when he expects all forms at each centre to be accepted for grant eligibility.

  Mr. Curry
  Each regional service centre will now undertake a detailed check of the IACS forms to determine eligibility for aid. These checks have already begun. We shall aim to have the checks completed as quickly as possible, having regard to the time payments are due under the individual schemes involved.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what total cost he estimates for the administration of the integrated administration and control system by his Department in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Curry
  Our best estimate is that administration of IACS in England will cost in the region of £7 million in 1993–94 and £5 million in 1994–95.

  Strawberries (Destruction)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise with his French counterpart the question of compensation for Mr. Russell Temple for the destruction of a quantity of Spanish strawberries near Bordeaux while en route to England.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  Her Majesty's embassy in Paris has already protested to the French authorities about the destruction of a consignment of strawberries which one of Mr. Temple's lorries was carrying near Bordeaux; they agree that he has a strong case for compensation. We shall be in touch with Mr. Temple.

  Agricultural Grants
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for subsidy or grant made before 11 February remained unpaid on 11 May in the region of the United Kingdom covering the north of England.

  Mr. Curry
  The processing of claims under many MAFF schemes follows an annual cycle. On 11 May, the position at the northern regional service centre at Carlisle was as follows:
  244
  Since it opened on 26 January, the 1993 hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme had attracted 4,562 claims of which 4,000 had been paid. Of 3,411 claims for suckler cow premium submitted by 15 December, 2,962 had been paid. The remainder were subject to outstanding inquiries. A total of 7,200 claims for sheep annual premium submitted by 5 March 1993 awaited processing.

  A total of 609 applications to participate in the Lake District environmentally sensitive area had been received since its launch on 22 January and were with ADAS for the preparation of detailed agreements.

  In the month of April 157 applications for capital grant schemes or payments were received and 178 were processed. The number in course of processing on 30 April was 227, of which 11 had been received before 11 February.

  We have made clear in our service standard publication, "Commitment to Service", that applications for grants and subsidies will be dealt with as swiftly as possible and we set out our targets under a number of schemes. We are currently extending our monitoring systems so that we can check more closely performance against these targets.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the increase in real output of the United Kingdom tourist industry in each year since 1986; what effect the decline in the nominal exchange rate since September 1992 has had on bookings for this year; and if he will publish his forecast for the industry's real output this year and next.

  Mr. Key
  The information on output is not available in the form requested. The Department does not collect data on bookings and so cannot quantify the effect of the depreciation of sterling since September 1992; however, it will have made the United Kingdom a more competitive tourism destination.

  The British Tourist Authority forecasts that the number of overseas visits will rise by 5 per cent. in 1993 and by a further 6 per cent. in 1994. Spending by overseas visitors is expected to rise by 4 per cent. (in cash terms) in 1993, and by a further 4 per cent. in 1994. The English tourist board forecasts that the number of domestic tourism trips of one night or more will rise by 1½ per cent. in both 1993 and 1994. Spending on domestic tourism trips is expected to rise by 7 per cent. (in cash terms) in 1993 and by a further 5½ per cent. in 1994.

  Arts
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the Government's activities in the field of the arts since 1987.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government aim to create the conditions which enable the arts to flourish. This is now the responsibility of my Department, the creation of which indicates the priority that the Government place both on the arts and on the other areas for which it carries responsibility. Most of the Department's funding for the arts is channelled through the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB); decisions on funding arts organisations
  245
  are taken by ACGB at arm's length from Government. Grant-in-aid for the ACGB has risen from £139·3 million in 1987–88 to £225·6 million in 1993–94, an increase of 16 per cent. in real terms.

EDUCATION

  Humanities Research
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements he is considering for the funding of humanities research.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government have considered carefully the appropriate framework for supporting humanities research, in the light of the Follett report and of the debate in another place on 17 February.

  The Government support humanities research primarily through the higher education funding councils (HEFCs), which have allocated some £90 million research funding for the humanities for the 1993–94 academic year. It also funds the British Academy to provide postgraduate and senior research awards and support research activities and facilities in the humanities: the Department for Education's grant to the academy for the 1993–94 financial year is some £22 million (an increase of 11 per cent. over the previous year).

  For research in the humanities the most important resources are the time of individual scholars, and library and other collections. For the humanities these are supported almost entirely through the HEFCs' institutional grant, as are permanent academic salaries in the sciences. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is undertaking a review of library provision. The Government do not believe that humanities research would be strengthened by reducing reliance on the HEFCs' institutional grant as the means of supporting academic salaries and research collections.

  Since the major channel for Government funding for humanities research will continue to be the HEFCs, the Government has concluded that the responsibility for promoting and funding it should remain with the Education Departments. This will allow the Office of Science and Technology to focus on its core responsibilities.

  The Government have also concluded that a research council established to manage the appropriate proportion of the resources available to humanities research would not be viable. The Government consider, moreover, that the direction and consolidation of research that the existing research councils provide would not be appropriate in the humanities.

  The Government believe that the existing structures for supporting humanities research, operating through the HEFCs and the British Academy, are best suited to meeting the particular needs of research in the humanities, and will continue to support high quality research in these disciplines in the United Kingdom.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools which have voted in favour of becoming grant-maintained are waiting for their applications to be accepted by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  There are 166 schools whose proposals for self-governing (grant-maintained) status are currently 246
  under consideration in the Department. A further 87 have voted in favour of applying for self-governing status but have yet to publish proposals.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all those organisations which have been approved by his Department as registered grant-maintained school auditors under the CIPFA scheme of audit regulation approved by his Department on 18 January.

  Mr. Forth
  Self-governing state schools (grant-maintained) are required to have an external audit of their accounts undertaken annually by one of the following: the Audit Commission; members of one of the professional accountancy bodies which are recognised supervisory bodies and who are also registered to audit limited companies in accordance with the companies legislation; or people or members of any other body approved by the Department of Trade and Industry to audit limited companies or approved by the Department of Education to audit grant-maintained schools.

  This Department has approved the CIPFA scheme of audit registration for this purpose but, as with the other professional bodies who can audit grant-maintained schools, is not responsible for approving the individuals or organisations applying for registration. That is a matter for the professional bodies concerned, who both register and monitor the auditors.

  I understand that the CIPFA has registered the following bodies under its scheme for the audit of grant-maintained schools:

  Surrey county council

  Dudley metropolitan borough council

  Hampshire county council

  Norfolk county council

  London borough of Croydon

  Derbyshire county council

  Bedfordshire county council

  Dorset county council

  Hertfordshire county council

  Lincolnshire county council

  Nottinghamshire county council

  Kent county council

  Cambridgeshire county council

  Gloucestershire county council

  Northamptonshire county council

  The requirements for external audits of grant-maintained schools are specified in an audit code issued by this Department. This includes an obligation on schools to notify the Department of the auditors they appoint.

  School Tests
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the publication, or otherwise, of the results of key stage 1 and 3 tests in schools this year; and what percentage of schools he expects to carry out these tests.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend intends to publish national curriculum test results in school performance tables this year. The primary tables will show the proportion of seven-year-old pupils in each primary school reaching or exceeding the level expected of a typical seven-year-old—level 2—in the core subjects of English, mathematics, science and in reading. The secondary performance tables will show the proportion of 14-year-olds in each secondary school reaching or exceeding the level expected of a typical 14-year-old—level
  247
  6—in mathematics and science. School results in English will not be published until 1994. My right hon. Friend has said that he will decide whether tests for 14-year-olds in technology should take place in 1994 in the light of this year's tests.

  My right hon. Friend also intends to publish both national and local analyses of the results of key stage one and three tests in England this autumn, although he has made clear that the local analyses will not include the results of the tests of 14-year-olds in English and technology.

  My right hon. Friend has repeatedly said that this summer's tests should be administered in the interest of pupils and in order to learn lessons for the future.

  Students
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total full-time equivalent number of students in higher education, postgraduate and undergraduate, from the United Kingdom and EC, in each year from 1980 to the most recent year available.

  Mr. Boswell
  Total full-time equivalent (FTE) student numbers of United Kingdom and EC domiciled' higher education students in Great Britain institutions are shown in the table:

  Year

  FTE2 (thousands)

  1980

  542·7

  1981

  570·5

  1982

  587·8

  1983

  603·6

  1984

  612·4

  1985

  624·1

  1986

  642·1

  1987

  655·4

  1988

  678·6

  1989

  724·8

  1990

  785·3

  1991

  880·6

  1 Includes a small number of non-EC overseas domiciled part-time students.

  2 An illustrative weight of 0·35 has been applied to part-time students to derive full-time equivalent student numbers.

  Sources: USR, FESR, WO, SOED.

  Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given, in connection with considering the potential membership of the

  Employment Select Committee reports

  Report number

  Title and date published

  Government response

  1992–93 Session

  First report

  Employment in the Horseracing Industry and the new VAT regime after 1 January 1993 (16 December 1992)

  Second Special report HC 521

  Second report

  Employment Consequences of British Coal's Proposed Pit Closures (21 January 1993)

  Third Special report HC 597

  1991–92 Session

  First report

  Employment in Prisons for Ex-offenders (28 November 1991)

  CM 1837" March 1992

  Second report

  Industrial Change: Retraining and Redeployment (7 May 1992)

  First Special report HC 219

  248
  proposed. Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority, to the reasons given by Lord Skidelsky and Dr. John Marenbon for their resignations from the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend regrets the resignations of Lord Skidelsky and Dr. Marenbon from SEAC, and is aware of the reasons they gave. When considering the appointment of members to the proposed SCAA he will take account of relevant comments made to him from all sources.

  Charters
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress he has made in issuing charters for further and higher education.

  Mr. Patten
  I have today issued the charters for further and higher education as consultative documents. I am seeking the views of a number of organisations including the representative bodies of universities and colleges before publishing the final documents in the autumn. Copies of the charters have been placed in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is consulting on' charters for Wales.

EMPLOYMENT

  Defence Work
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to encourage the allocation of defence work and related employment to the north of England and Scotland.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on Friday 14 May 1993,Official Report, column 603.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about her Department since April 1989; and how many have been accepted.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Employment Select Committee has published 14 reports since April 1989. The Government's responses are contained in the following table. Copies of the documents are available in the Library.
  249

  Report number

  Title and date published

  Government response

  1990–91 Session

  First report

  Disability and Employment (Typescript 20 December 1990 HMSO)

  No Special report published—letter sent by Secretary of State 15 January 1991

  Second report

  Recruitment Practices (20 February 1991)

  Departmental Memorandum sent 19 April 1991

  Third report

  Future Prospects for Levels of Employment and Unemployment (5 June 1991)

  Second Special report HC 675

  Fourth report

  The European Community Social Charter (20 August 1991)

  Third Special report HC 676

  Fifth report

  Training and Enterprise Councils and Vocational Training (20 August 1991)

  Fourth Special report HC 677

  1989–90 Session

  First report

  Legionnaires' Disease: Further Developments (25 January 1990)

  First Special report HC 428

  Second report

  Part-time work (31 January 1990)

  Second Special report HC 485

  Third report

  Employment Training (11 June 1990)

  Third Special report HC 643

  Fourth report

  Tourism (25 July 1990)

  Fourth Special report HC 668

  1988–89 Session

  Second report

  The Employment Patterns of the Over 50's (9 May 1989)

  Fourth Special report HC 581

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to amend the qualifying conditions for unfair dismissal set out in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 to enable a claim for unfair dismissal to be pursued by a woman dismissed because of her pregnancy at any stage between conception and the end of maternity leave.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes. The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, currently before Parliament, contains provisions which will make it automatically unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee on maternity-related grounds during the period of her pregnancy or statutory maternity leave. This protection will apply regardless of the employee's length of service or hours of work.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Priorities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what priorities have been set for Her Majesty's Government between now and the beginning of the summer adjournment.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 January 1993 at columns 786–87.

  Policy Objectives, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what are Her Majesty's Government's short-term, medium-term and long-term policy objectives for London.

  The Prime Minister
  Our policy objectives are to maintain and enhance London's position as a thriving national capital and a leading world city.

  Council of Ministers (Votes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice has been given to all Departments concerning the recording of answers to be published in the Official Report to parliamentary questions of all votes in meetings of the EC's Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  All Departments are being advised that statements to the House following meetings of the Council of Ministers should include details of the vote, whenever a formal vote is taken in Council, or should record that no formal votes were taken.

  Correspondence (Journalists)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines he has issued governing official correspondence between civil servants and journalists; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None. Guidance on various points concerning relations between civil servants and journalists is given in "A Working Guide for Government Information Officers" produced by the information officer management unit in the Office of Public Service and Science, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Engagements
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 May.

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

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total amount of UNHCR humanitarian aid reaching Bosnia-Herzegovina during the last two months originating from(a) the Republic of Croatia and (b) the Republic of Serbia; how much of that aid arrived by road to each destination; and how much by air.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The most recent figures available from UNHCR show that in February a total of 17,653 tonnes were delivered to Bosnia-Herzegovina, 24,330 tonnes were delivered in March and 6,131 tonnes in the first half of April. Most of this aid was delivered by road from UNHCR's distribution centres in Metkovic, Zagreb and Rijeka in Croatia and from Belgrade in Serbia. Exact figures showing the distribution from each centre are unavailable.

  No aid was delivered by air to Bosnia-Herzegovina from Croatia or Serbia during this period—the airlift to Sarajevo operates from Ancona in Italy and has delivered a total of 38,356 tonnes to date. The air drops to eastern Bosnia operate from Rheinmain in Germany and have delivered 2,849 tonnes to date.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of Serbian refugees displaced by the conflict in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations does not keep records of displaced people in the former Yugoslavia by ethnic origin. However, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are now a total of 457,000 displaced people in Serbia, of whom 291,000 have come from Bosnia-Herzegovina and 166,000 from Croatia.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on incidents involving the stopping of United Nations and humanitarian aid convoys by Croat forces in Bosnia on(a) 11 May and (b) 12 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We understand that on Monday 10 May a UNHCR convoy manned by Bosnian Muslim drivers en route from Metkovic to Zenica was stopped at a Bosnian Croat militia (HVO) checkpoint. Reports indicate that the vehicles were damaged, some of the goods were stolen and several of the drivers were beaten. The convoy then proceeded to Gorni Vakuf, where the drivers received medical attention from British UNPROFOR troops, and finally returned to Metkovic on 11 May.

  We have no reports of any incidents involving UNHCR convoys on Tuesday 11 May. But on Wednesday 12 May the HVO stopped a UNHCR convoy manned by Danish drivers which carried Italian goods and visiting Italian officials. The convoy, en route from Split to Zenica was held up for nine hours, but eventually allowed to proceed without harm to goods or personnel.
  252

  Indonesia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the terms on which £65 million aid was granted to the Government of Indonesia to develop a power project in east Kalimantan; if he will name the project; and if he will list the British companies involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The £65 million loan arrangement signed with the Indonesian Government in April 1993 provided finance at 3·5 per cent. interest, repayable over 25 years with a seven-year grace period.

  The Samarinda electric power project in east Kalimantan is likely to utilise most of the £65 million. The Indonesian electricity authority will award a contract for equipment supply after a competition between a number of British suppliers.

  Family Planning Projects
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how ODA-funded population and family planning projects are evaluated; what criteria. are used; which organisations have been evaluated; and with what results.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]ODA's evaluation department is responsible for formal impact evaluations of, mostly, bilateral aid spending. Their current work programme includes population and family planning projects. The criteria used for their evaluation are the same as for other ODA programmes, and include assessing how far the objectives of the spending have been achieved and its impact on intended beneficiaries in comparison with cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies were put forward by Foreign Ministers of other member states in relation to the commitment of ground forces and combat aircraft in the former Yugoslavia at the most recent EC Foreign Affairs Council.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Keighley on 19 May at column 168.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise in the European Council the issue of human rights in Croatia and the role of extreme right-wing groups in that country.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The behaviour of the Croatian Government and its human rights record are regularly discussed with our EC partners. These factors, together with the Croatian Government's attitude towards fighting between Croats and Muslims in Bosnia, and towards the Serbs in Krajina, are taken into account in determining EC policy towards Croatia.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications
  253
  from holders of Yugoslav passports have been refused since the introduction of visa requirements; and how many have been issued during the same period.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The method of collecting statistics at posts world wide does not normally allow us to establish the number of applications by nationality. For an initial period, however, we are monitoring the effect of the visa regime on former Yugoslav nationals at the visa sections in Belgrade, Zagreb, Vienna, Budapest, Sofia, Rome, Milan, Florence, Naples, Dusseldorf and Paris. At these Posts, up to the end of April, 494 applications from former Yugoslav nationals had been refused; 3,918 applications were granted.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to contribute monitors, including military personnel, along the border of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We support the deployment of international observers on Bosnia's borders with Serbia and Montenegro to monitor implementation of the prohibition of supplies (except humanitarian goods) to areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina controlled by the Bosnian Serbs. The United Nations Security Council is now actively considering detailed proposals. As yet no decisions have been taken on how the United Kingdom would contribute to international efforts to implement measures agreed by the United Nations Security Council.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to provide monitors to police the border between Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; and when he expects the first monitors to be in place.

  Mr. Garet-Jones
  The United Nations Security Council is actively considering proposals to deploy international observers on Bosnia's borders with Serbia and Montenegro. We hope that these personnel will take up their duties as soon as possible.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first became aware of a proposal by the Federal Government of Yugoslavia to put the border between Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina under the supervision of United Nation monitors; and how this was responded to by Her Majesty's Government and EC partners.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Serbia and Montenegro authorities announced on 6 May their intention to prohibit the supply of all goods (except humanitarian supplies) to the Bosnian Serbs. We hope that the United Nations Security Council will soon agree to deploy international observers to monitor implementation of these measures. At its meeting on 10 May the EC Foreign Affairs Council indicated that the European Community and its Member States would be willing to contribute to international efforts to support implementation.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has in respect of human rights abuses and restrictions on the press and media in Croatia; and what representations have been made to the Government of Croatia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There are continuing concerns about Croatia's human rights record and treatment of the media.254
  Several representations have been made, most recently a strong message from the EC presidency to President Tudjman on 12 May, warning that the Community would not be able to continue its support for Croatia if the violence and ethnic cleansing committed by Croats in Bosnia continue.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of detention camps operated by(a) Bosnian Serbs, (b) Bosnian Croats and (c) Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regularly visits 1,023 prisoners held by Bosnian Serbs in eight places of detention, 2,200 held by Bosnian Croats in six places of detention and 1,023 held by Bosnian Muslims in 15 places of detention. The ICRC is also visiting those detained during the recent fighting between Bosnian Croat and Muslim forces in central and southern Bosnia.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his most recent estimate of the number of people living outside the United Kingdom who listen to BBC World Service broadcasts.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Latest estimates by the BBC World Service, based on audience research, indicate that the global audience for World Service broadcasts in all languages is in the region of 124 million. This figure does not include any information on audiences in certain countries, such as China, Burma and Vietnam, where reliable data are not readily available.

  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Wilton Park executive agency performed against the targets which were agreed for 1992–93; and what targets have been agreed for the current year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Wilton Park exceeded three of the four targets set for the 1992–93 financial year and only narrowly failed, by 1 per cent., to achieve the target for cost recovery. Commercial income was lower than expected as a result of the economic recession.

  The Wilton Park departmental board met on 23 April. I have agreed to the recommendation of the board that the following key targets be adopted for this financial year:

  to increase overall income from £918,000 in 1992–93 to £959,000;

  to increase cost recovery from 71–5 per cent. in 1992–93 to 72·05 per cent.;

  to increase the overall number of Wilton Park Conference participants from 957 in 1992–93 to 995;

  to reduce the average cost to the FCO of each participant from £382 to 1992–93 to £374.

HEALTH

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the progress being made in implementing the patients charter.
  255
  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service has made considerable progress in implementing the patients charter since it came into effect on 1 April 1992. The patients charter has stimulated many innovative ideas and good practice at a local level and the efforts of the NHS should be recognised. From April 1993 the patients charter has been extended to primary health care with all family health service authorities producing their own local charters.

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make available the letter sent to Mr. John Firth in her Department from the Audit Commission in relation to their findings on fund-holding.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 31 March at col 239.

  Mammograms
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women in Pendle have been waiting more than two years for a mammogram.

  Mr. Sackville
  No women requiring mammography due to clinical need have waited more than two years.

  Contraceptives
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to meet representatives from the United Kingdom Hormonal Contraceptive Manufacturers Group following the Government's decision to seek to extend the selected list scheme to 10 new categories.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No formal invitation to meet this group has been received.

  Midwives
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent midwives were employed in the NHS in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Midwifery staff. England 1987–91

  Whole-time equivalent

  1987

  19,130

  1988

  19,090

  1989

  19,110

  1990

  19,860

  1991

  19,640

  Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  NSPCC Report
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she is making to the recommendations in the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children report on joint enterprise and parents.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have seen a copy of the report submitted to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which itself is expected to report in the summer. This is principally a matter for the Home Office and I refer my hon. Friend to 256
  the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department, gave to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 5 May at column 83.

  Prescription Charges
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men aged 65 years and over, (b) women aged 60 years and over and (c) people with family health services authority exemption certificates for prescriptions there were in each year since 1988.

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

  Numbers of men aged 65 years and over, women aged 60 years and over and prescription charge exemption certificates issued by family health services authorities1 in England in each year 1988 to 1991

  Year

  Men aged 65 and over

  Women aged 60 and over

  Exemption2 certificates

  1988

  2,981,002

  5,752,924

  635,779

  1989

  3,013,527

  5,760,838

  621,229

  1990

  3,036,790

  5,758,402

  594,894

  1991

  3,071,645

  5,788,790

  608,792

  1 Family health services authorities issue exemption certificates to pregnant women, women in the first year after the birth of a child and men and women with one or more of the medical conditions which confer entitlement to free prescriptions.

  2 Data derived from six-monthly statistical returns provided by family health services authorities.

  Artificial Insemination
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of the centres licensed for artificial insemination by donor from 1 August 1991, but not now licensed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following donor insemination centres, operating at 1 August 1991, no longer hold licences:

  Hartlepool general hospital

  Mount Stuart hospital, Torquay

  Royal Oldham hospital

  The Heath clinic, London

  The following centres were performing donor insemination on 1 August 1991, but currently hold only a storage licence:

  Walm Lane clinic, London

  Watford general hospital.

  Non-fundholder Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of provider units known by the Department of Health and NHS management executive to be restricting services to non-fundholding GPs' patients in April 1993 and May 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for national health service purchasers—health authorities and general practitioner fundholders—to place contracts with provider units to secure high quality, cost-effective services. The Government agreed with, the medical profession in 1991 that providers should not offer a contract to one purchaser that would disadvantage the patients of another. We have no evidence that hospitals are not following this guidance when offering services to potential purchasers.

  Absenteeism
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will publish the report prepared by Crime Prevention Consulting on absenteeism in the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from pharmacists regarding the proposed new level of payments to pharmacists; and what will be the effect on small pharmacies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have received a number of representations about our proposals for restructuring pharmacists' remuneration. These proposals are under discussion with the profession.

  Junior Hospital Doctors and Dentists
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the hours of junior hospital doctors and dentists; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional task forces have reported that at 31 March there were 370 junior hospital doctors and dentists in England contracted for more than a maximum average of 83 hours a week. This is a fall of over 12,900, or 97 per cent., since September 1990. We also have reports that a further 125 posts have had their contracted hours reduced in April, bringing the total remaining posts to 245.

  This represents significant progress in reducing junior doctors' and dentists' hours. I have written to health authority and trust chairmen to thank them and to emphasise that the small number of posts where contracted hours remain over 83 hours are tackled as a high priority. I will monitor progress closely.

  We are determined to see further progress in reducing hours for the benefit of junior doctors and dentists.

  Anophthalmia
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the small area health statistics unit, LSE, will be reporting on its examination of anophthalmia; and if she will publish their findings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A research proposal for a study into the incidence of anophthalmia in Great Britain has been received by the Department from Dr. Paul Elliott, the head of the environmental epidemiology unit at the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine. This proposal is being considered by external referees. The proposed length of the study is 18 months and the team would be expected to report shortly after that.

  AIDS
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the report by Professor Nicholas Day on the spread of AIDS; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Updated projections of HIV and AIDS for England and Wales prepared by a working group 258
  chaired by Professor Day and convened by the director of the Public Health Laboratory Service will be published shortly. It would be inappropriate to comment on the report before it is published.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the financial support given by her Department to groups campaigning on the issue of AIDS for the financial years 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and the planned amount for 1994–95 expressed both in cash and real terms; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the funds made available by the Department under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to voluntary organisations in support of their prevention and care services for people infected and affected by HIV/AIDS and the years 1990–91 to 1993–94. Funding decisions for 1994–95 have not yet been made.

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Real terms

  1990–91

  1·726

  1·726

  1991–92

  1·842

  1·727

  1992–93

  1·987

  1·800

  1993–94

  1·927

  1·699

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will outline her Department's proposed strategy to target funding provided for HIV/AIDS prevention work more specifically than hitherto at(a) intravenous drug users and (b) homosexual men; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what policies she is proposing to ensure that narrower targeting of funding for HIV/AIDS prevention work on particularly high-risk groups has no detrimental effect on the impact of the safer sex message directed at the general population.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department will ensure that funding for HIV and AIDS prevention work strikes the right balance between maintaining awareness among the wider population, and increasing the emphasis on those whose behaviour might place them at particular risk including men who have sex with men, drug users and their sexual partners.

  The work will build upon the success we have had in achieving high public awareness and include education for young people in both formal and informal settings. Health authorities have been encouraged to undertake HIV prevention initiatives for those at greatest risk and provide increased facilities for HIV testing.

  Corporate Affairs Intelligence Unit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the operation of the corporate affairs intelligence unit within the NHS Management Executive with reference to its reporting mechanism and structure, its staffing structure, the number of staff employed by the unit and its budget for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 22 February at columns 482–83.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics she has on the number of reported cases of food poisoning in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the number of reported cases for England and Wales only. Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Food poisoning cases England and Wales 1988–92

  Year

  Total

  1988

  39,713

  1989

  52,557

  1990

  52,145

  1991

  52,543

  11992

  64,882

  1 Provisional.

  Source: OPCS.

  The Government have initiated a major new surveillance programme to collect and analyse hard information about the sources and causes of human food-borne illness. As part of this programme, a major new study will start later this year in England, which aims to provide a sound basis for assessing the true incidence and causes of food-borne disease in the population as well as its economic cost.

  Income from private patients

  £ thousands (cash)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Northern

  1,504

  1,511

  1,716

  1,986

  1,877

  Yorkshire

  3,425

  3,769

  3,963

  4,888

  4,542

  Trent

  2,385

  2,794

  3,114

  2,809

  3,465

  East Anglian

  3,093

  3,888

  4,709

  5,241

  7,319

  North West Thames

  8,150

  10,233

  11,700

  13,171

  13,984

  North East Thames

  8,791

  10,987

  13,958

  16,184

  11,158

  South East Thames

  6,828

  7,809

  8,576

  10,905

  11,692

  South West Thames

  2,702

  2,729

  3,291

  4,061

  3,528

  Wessex

  1,665

  2,202

  2,471

  3,263

  4,383

  Oxford

  4,849

  5,778

  8,083

  9,462

  9,725

  South Western

  2,627

  3,154

  3,591

  4,750

  2,112

  West Midlands

  3,439

  3,594

  4,313

  5,573

  6,327

  Mersey

  2,055

  2,032

  1,648

  1,981

  2,006

  North Western

  4,094

  4,505

  5,302

  6,533

  4,950

  SHAs

  11,287

  11,910

  15,141

  16,663

  21,513

  NHS Trusts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32,254

  Total

  66,893

  76,895

  91,577

  107,472

  140,834

  Notes:

  1. SHAs = Special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  2. Some total columns do not add precisely because of rounding.

  Hillingdon Hospital Incinerator
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive's most recent inspection of Hillingdon hospital incinerator; what was the date of the inspection and the outcome of consideration of corrosion in the water tubes; and if she is satisfied that inspections are being carried out sufficiently regularly for the safety of employees and local residents.

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of administration costs for(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities and (c) trusts in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 5 May 1993]The latest available (1991–92) annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England record expenditure on headquarters administration totalling £312 million and £327 million respectively.

  These figures cover the total revenue expenditure on the pay and accommodation costs of staff of all disciplines and their support staff employed at headquarters levels together with the costs of the purchaser function. They exclude administrative support in hospital departments and at other local levels which is regarded as operational expenditure.

  The annual accounts and financial returns of national health service trusts do not separately identify administration costs of a non-operational nature.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much income, by region, has been generated by private patient facilities in NHS hospitals in each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]Figures of total income from private in-patients and out-patients, derived from annual accounts submitted to the Department, are shown in the table.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) last inspected the incinerator at Hillingdon hospital on 4 August 1992 in connection with an associated liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) storage installation.

  HSE learned on 15 April that a steam boiler tube associated with the incinerator had failed on 16 March 1993. HSE has obtained confirmation from the operator of the incinerator that all the necessary thorough examinations had been made before the incident and that no

  261
  repairs affecting safety had been required. HSE has also been informed that the water treatment system to prevent corrosion has since been modified and that a new boiler will be installed in June 1993. Failure of a boiler tube is detected by an automatic monitoring system which shuts down the boiler and presents no danger to employees or local residents.

  It is the duty of the operator of the incinerator to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees and the health and safety of others, including local residents, in connection with its operation. We are satisfied with H SE's arrangements to monitor the operator's compliance with health and safety legislation and that the statutory requirements in respect of the incinerator have been complied with.

  Responsibility for inspecting environmental pollution matters under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 rests with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Pharmacies (West Midlands)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of pharmacies in the west midlands; and how many dispense fewer than 2,000 prescriptions a month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 May 1993, c. 590]I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should have read:The total number of pharmacies in the west midlands in 1991–2, the latest year for which figures are available, was 1,073. Of these, 227 pharmacies were dispensing fewer than 2,000 prescriptions a month.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the numbers of regular Croatian army forces currently in Bosnia-Herzegovina; what assessment has been made of the potential additional risk their presence poses to British forces under United Nations command; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no accurate figures available of the number of regular Croatian army forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We judge that the involvement of these forces does not significantly increase the threat to British forces at present.

  TASM
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest proposals in respect of the tactical air-to-surface missile system.

  Mr. Aitken
  We continue to study a range of possible options for our long-term sub-strategic nuclear capability. An announcement on the outcome will be made at the appropriate time.

  Lance Corporal Gary Fryer
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will send to the hon. Member for Stockton, South a full report, including the inquest and inquiry reports, of the circumstances in which Lance Corporal Gary Fryer was killed on 16 October 1992.
  262
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A summary of the service police report into the circumstances surrounding Lance Corporal Fryer's death will be released to the next of kin, on request, after the coroner's inquest. This is standard practice in incidents of this sort, but it is not our normal practice to release the information to anyone other than the next of kin. A date for the inquest has not been fixed.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the circumstances in which Lance Corporal Gary Fryer, No. 24792566 of the Royal Corps of Signals was killed on 16 October 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Lance Corporal Gary Fryer was driving as part of a British military convoy, consisting of 14 vehicles. The convoy was driving along the autobahn route 28, en route to Emden, Germany. Because the convoy was strung out, the leading vehicle stopped on the hard shoulder on the westbound carriageway, between the junctions of Apen/Remel and Filsum.

  Lance Corporal Fryer left his vehicle and was hit by a Dutch civilian articulated Scania lorry and trailer, which was attempting to overtake the convoy. He sustained fatal injuries. The accident occurred around 3 am

  The incident was investigated by the German civil police and the Royal Military Police. A copy of the police reports have been passed to the Warrington coroner.

  The driver of the articulated lorry is a Dutch national and faces prosecution on various charges in Holland as a result of the accident. The coroner will not fix a date for an inquest until legal proceedings concerning the accident are complete.

  Radiation Warnings
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts have been made by his Department to date to provide information to the general public on(a) issuing early warnings of radiation hazards, (b) the early identification and cordoning-off of contaminated areas, (c) medical screening and decontamination of those contaminated with plutonium and (d) the restoration to safe use of contaminated land and buildings in the event of a nuclear weapon transportation accident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992 require that prior information be supplied to members of the public who are likely to be in an area in which they are liable to be affected by a reasonably foreseeable radiation emergency. In the case of nuclear weapon transport, the likelihood of an accident affecting any individual member of the public is so extremely remote that prior supply of information is not required.

  Sunburst Missiles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the dangers posed to British forces in the Persian Gulf by Sunburst cruise missiles; and what discussions he has had with his Ukranian counterpart about the sale of the missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no evidence that Ukraine has sold cruise missiles to Iran and the Ukrainians have publicly denied that they have made any such sale. My Department has not therefore discussed the matter with Ukraine.

  Metrology
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the future metrology needs of each business section of the Defence Research Agency; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the full financial appraisal made by his Department or the Defence Research Agency before finalising the sale of the mechanical metrology laboratory in Woolwich;

  (3) what place the proposals to sell off the mechanical metrology laboratory have in his programme of asset selling or privatisation of activities within the Defence Research Agency; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what account has been taken of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in respect of the proposed sale of the mechanical metrology laboratory at Woolwich;

  (5) what consultations took place, and with whom, prior to his granting approval to the Defence Research Agency to offer the mechanical metrology laboratory for sale;

  (6) if he will list the dates (a) of publication and circulation of the Defence Research Agency consultative document on the proposed sale of the directorate of quality assurance and technical support's mechanical metrology laboratory, (b) when the option 4 was chosen as the preferred option and (c) of the initial approach to and subsequent appointment of Capita Corporate Finance Ltd;

  (7) what assessment he has made of the risk to the Ministry of Defence as purchaser, both in terms of quality and price, of having to deal with a private sector monopoly provider if the sale of the directorate of quality assurance and technical support's mechanical metrology laboratory proceeds;

  (8) what extent the cost/benefit analysis of option 4 contained in the Defence Research Agency's consultative document on the proposed sale of the directorate of quality assurance and technical support's mechanical metrology laboratory includes possible redundancy costs;

  (9) if he will set out his proposed timetable for the sell-off of the directorate of quality assurance and technical support's mechanical metrology laboratory at Woolwich; and if he would be willing to extend this to facilitate an in-house bid being made;

  (10) if he will make it his policy that the DQATS mechanical metrology laboratory will remain in Woolwich.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letters from Mr. J. Chisholm to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 20 May 1993:

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the future metrology needs of the DRA.

  We carried out extensive consultations with military customers, looked very carefully at out own DRA needs, and retained consultants to advise, amongst other things, on the commercial propects. As a result of this, we concluded that there was an ongoing requirement for mechanical metrology but that the MOD/DRA demand was insufficient to take up the full capability of the Laboratory. What we are seeking to
  264
  do, therefore, is to find a private sector buyer who would be able to combine the potential MOD/DRA customer base with his existing commercial market and offer a cost-effective service to both us and to industry at large.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your request that the investment appraisal carried out for the posssible sale of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory should be placed in the Library.

  The financial case for each of the possible options for the future of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory is summarised in the Consultative Document issued to staff and Trade Unions. I have today arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library. The release of any more detailed financial information could jeopardise the commercial confidentiality of the terms of sale.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the possible sale of the DRA's Mechanical Laboratory.

  It has recently become apparent that the likely future income of this Mechanical Metrology Laboratory is insufficient to cover its costs. Rather than simply closing down the Laboratory I have, therefore, begun to explore the possibility of finding a private sector buyer. This is a logical response to a very specific problem. It is not part of any wider policy of privatisation.

  With regard to asset selling, the DRA will, of course, be vacating a large number of sites over the next few years as part of its rationalisation programme and those sites will be handed back to the Ministry of Defence for alternative use or disposal. The site of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory at Woolwich will eventually be treated in exactly the same way.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question concerning the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations to the proposed sale of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory at Woolwich.

  The legal view is that the 'TUPE' regulations will apply to the sale of the Laboratory and I would expect potential buyers to take account of that in putting together their bids. There are a number of non-mobile staff in the Laboratory to whom a commitment has been given that they will have the opportunity to opt to return to the MOD. This commitment will be honoured.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the proposed sale of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory.

  Following consultation within the Ministry of Defence, Ministerial approval was given in April 1993 to initiate consultations with the staff and trades unions and at the same time to test the market for potential buyers for the Laboratory. No final decision will be taken regarding the sale until we have considered the outcome of the staff and TU consultation, which has now been completed, and evaluated the offers received.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the proposed sale of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory.

  The Consultative Document was published and circulated to staff on 1 April 1993. It put forward Option 4 as the preferred solution but whether this is subsequently confirmed will depend on the outcome of the consultation exercise that has just been completed with the staff and trades unions and the evaluation of offers received from potential purchasers.

  Capita Corporate Finance Limited were retained by the Defence Research Agency in February 1993 to carry out a financial appraisal of the Option for the Laboratory, including possible sale. They are now assisting us in the advertising of the Laboratory and will advise us on the acceptability of bids received. It will, however, be for me as

  265
  Chief Executive of the Defence Research Agency to decide what final recommendations to make to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the impact of the possible sale of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory on the service provided to Ministry of Defence customers.

  The market for mechanical metrology is characterised by a diversity of both public sector and private sector suppliers. Most of the services offered by our Laboratory could be provided by alternative sources, which is why we have looked at closure as a possible option. Our Laboratory does, however, have some particular skills and capabilities which, whilst not enough to justify its retention by the DRA, are of sufficient advantage to our customers to prompt us to look for ways of sustaining its continued existence in the private sector. Survival in the private sector would, however, depend upon the Laboratory being able to attract new commercial customers and retain existing MOD ones whether owned by the DRA or by a private sector concern, it would not be a monopoly supplier.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the increase of redundancy costs in the cost/benefit analysis of the way ahead.

  We have taken into account all the costs associated with each of the options available to us. That includes the redundancy costs that might arise in the event of a sale proceeding and not all staff transferring to the new owner.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying, directly to your question regarding the timetable for the possible sale of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory, and the feasibility of accommodating an in-house bid.

  Expressions of interest were invited from private sector firms on 27 April by Capita Corporate Finance Limited who are handling the mechanics of the process for us. Final bids will be invited from the three or four most promising firms sometime in early July. We expect to be in a position to make our selection and put a recommendation to Ministers in early August.

  I do not believe there is any future for Mechanical Metrology within the DRA, which is why I have been exploring the option of a sale. An in-house bid is not therefore appropriate. The reason we are pursuing the possibility of a sale for the Laboratory is that whilst the quality of the work provided is excellent, the volume and demand cannot meet costs. The Laboratory does not have the skills and network of contracts to exploit possible commercial markets which is what a potential buyer would bring. An in-house bid would, therefore, not be feasible unless augmented by considerable additional resource. I would not, however, discourage a proposal for a 'management buy-out' although this would, of course, have to be evaluated alongside other offers from the private sector.

  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the future location of the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory.

  The DRA is already committed to withdrawing from Woolwich by 1995–96 as part of its rationalisation programme and I understand the MOD is intending to close the site shortly afterwards. It is not, therefore, feasible for the Mechanical Metrology Laboratory to remain on the site in the longer term although we have made it clear to potential purchasers that they could negotiate an agreement with the MOD to keep the Laboratory on the site for a transitional period.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it is proposed to establish the directorate general test and evaluation as an agency; and if he has 266
  considered incorporating the present directorate of quality assurance and technical support's mechanical metrology laboratory within the proposed agency.

  Mr. Aitken
  Although the Directorate General of Test and Evaluation has been identified as a candidate for agency status I have not yet taken a final decision. The Mechanical Metrology Laboratory has not been considered for inclusion within DGT&E, but there is no reason for the task to be retained within the public sector and the aim of the Defence Research Agency—the current owner—is to offer the facility for sale as a going concern.

  Falklands War
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which(a) current and (b) former officers he has received reports or other documents relating to allegations concerning possible war crimes during the Falklands conflict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have seen one letter from a former officer who served in the Falklands during the conflict in 1982. I have also received reports from within the Department on the allegations of possible war crimes.

  The allegations are currently being investigated by the Metropolitan police who have the full co-operation of my Department. During the course of their investigations, the Metropolitan police continue to have access to all relevant departmental and regimental files.

  Naval Support Command
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he expects to announce his decision on the site chosen for the establishment of the naval support command; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I hope to be able to announce soon our preferred location for the headquarters of the naval support command, and the start of formal consultations with all interested parties.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, venues and methods of disposal for stocks of genetically modified organisms which have been held by his Department in each year when such disposals have occurred.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]This is a matter for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) and I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Mr. G. Pearson to Mrs. Ann Winterton, dated 20 May 1993:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him if he will list the dates, venues and methods of disposal for stocks of genetically modified organisms which have been held by his Department in each year when such disposals have occurred (Question 9, Order Paper 12 May 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out research to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures

  267
  against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. The research includes assessing the threat to the UK Armed Forces from genetically modified organisms.

  3. The reasons for producing, storing and disposing of genetically modified organisms were stated in my letter to you of 17 May 1993 in reply to your Parliamentary Question asking whether any stocks of genetically modified organisms are currently held by the Ministry of Defence. As I indicated in that letter genetically modified organisms that do not exhibit properties of value to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment research programme are destroyed.
  268
  As such, genetically modified organisms are disposed of at CBDE as they are evaluated and this can be as frequent as daily. Before disposal they are inactivated by high temperature steam in an autoclave in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Health and Safety Executive Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation. The inactivated organisms are then disposed of using normal cleansing procedures. The work at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on genetically modified organisms has been in progress for the past 9 years and disposals have been made as described above since the start of the work.

SCOTLAND

  Quarrying
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he will take on the appeal from Scottish Aggregates Ltd. against the refusal of planning permission to develop a quarry at Windyhill Farm, Elderslie by Renfrew district council; what procedures he will apply to ensure that local residents have the opportunity to put their case; what steps he takes to ensure that local elected representatives are kept abreast of the situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has not received any appeal in respect of the development to which the hon. Member refers.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his latest estimate of the receipts from council house sales in Edinburgh that will count towards this year's capital allocation;

  (2) how much money he will allow Edinburgh district council to borrow for capital expenditure on council housing this year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Edinburgh district council's gross final HRA capital allocation for investment in council housing in 1993–94 is £30·702 million. This consists of a net allocation of £14·855 million, plus estimated HRA capital receipts of £15·847 million (of which £14·926 million are in respect of council house sales).

  Water Bills
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated added cost to the average water bill in(a) Lothian and (b) Strathclyde as a result of non-payment of water bills.

  Sir Hector Monro
  In setting council water charges for 1993–94, Lothian and Strathclyde regional councils have assumed collection rates of 95 per cent. and 90 per cent. respectively. On average, this gives added costs of £3 in Lothian and £6 in Strathclyde regional council.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households in(a) Lothian and (b) Strathclyde are in arrears with water bills; and what is the estimated amount.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Details of the numbers of households in Lothian and Strathclyde in arrears with community water charges are not held centrally.

  Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current position relating to the appeal of Raymond Gilmour, currently detained in Saughton prison on the conviction of murder.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations were submitted on behalf of Mr. Raymond Gilmour on 8 January and 12 March this year concerning his conviction 270
  for murder at Glasgow High Court on 7 June 1982. Detailed inquiries are being made into the matters raised by these petitions. The hon. Member will be informed as soon as a decision has been reached in his constituent's case.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 11 February to the hon. Member for Ayr,Official Report, columns 785–86, what plans he has for the development of childrens' hospices to serve areas of Scotland remote from the hospice proposed by the Children's Hospice Association, Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  None. The hospice being established by the Children's Hospice Association Scotland will accept children from all parts of Scotland.

  Railway Stations (Lifts)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration British Rail's advisory group on disability has given to installing passenger lifts to allow people with mobility disabilities access to railway stations in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The role of the British Rail advisory group on disability (BRAG) is to advise BR on provision for disabled passengers. The group does not report to Ministers. The consideration by BRAG of any specific issues is therefore an internal matter for the group and for BR.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Lang
  The Office of the Data Protection Registrar has verified that one complaint of unauthorised disclosure was received against the Scottish Office on 9 May 1991. After investigation, the Registrar confirmed that under the Data Protection Act 1984 no breach of the principle of disclosure had taken place.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 408, what steps he has taken to ensure that general practitioner fund holders, in providing care themselves, or in setting contracts with other providers, will not directly disadvantage NHS patients from other practices.

  Mr. Stewart
  Existing guidance concerning GP fund holders setting contracts with other providers is contained in the procedural manual on GP fund-holding issued by the management executive of the national health service in Scotland. This already requires that providers ensure that contracts with one purchaser will not disadvantage the patients of another.
  271
  Copies of this manual have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  In consultation with health boards, guidance is currently in the process of being compiled which will incorporate the principle that GP fund holders in providing care themselves, will not directly disadvantage NHS patients from other practices. This guidance when completed will be included in the manual.

  Enterprise Trust, Glasgow
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the budget and actual expenditure for each year since 1987 of the East End management unit and the East End Executive in Glasgow.

  Mr. Stewart
  The East End Executive is an enterprise trust, established in 1990, and has received support from a variety of public and private sector sources, including Glasgow Development Agency. The East End management unit is, I understand, jointly funded by Strathclyde regional council and Glasgow district council and has also received some project funding from the Glasgow Development Agency.

  Since neither of these organisations is responsible to, nor directly funded by, the Scottish Office we do not hold the information that the hon. Member requests. I suggest that he might best take up his inquiries direct with them.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department took of countryside values in considering whether to object to the proposed opencast mining at Woodbank Farm, Armadale; if he will list each other factor considered by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department; and if he will place in the Library the text of his Department's advice to the West Lothian district council on this proposal.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department was consulted by West Lothian district council about the proposed opencast mining at Woodbank farm, Armadale, in accordance with the established procedures for consultations on developments affecting agricultural land. Wider questions concerning the effect of the proposals on the countryside would be for others to consider. After considering the agricultural quality of the land in question and the scale and nature of the proposals, the Department advised that it had no objections provided restoration and after-care are undertaken to a suitable standard. A list of detailed restoration conditions was supplied to the district council. I am arranging for a copy of the Department's response and the conditions to he placed in the Library.

  Reparation and Mediation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the development of reparation and mediation between victims and offenders in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In this financial year the grant offered to Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (SACRO) for reparation and mediation was increased by just over 25 per cent. from £16,720 to £21,000. Following discussions with SACRO 272
  this grant will enable the director of the Edinburgh scheme to continue to develop the concept of reparation and mediation and to produce a document of guidance for the development of other such schemes.

  Two new schemes, one in Hamilton and the other in Aberdeen, have recently received urban programme support. Reparation and mediation has a significant contribution to make within diversion from prosecution policies and research has been commissioned into the operation of the Edinburgh scheme. I will examine carefully the findings of this research and determine how best we can take forward the development of this useful alternative to prosecution.

  Student Allowances
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish details of any changes in students' allowances for 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am publishing today the main rates of allowances payable under the postgraduate students' allowances scheme for vocational postgraduate courses which do not attract student loans, together with the rates of various supplementary allowances payable to both undergraduate and vocational postgraduate award holders. The main rates of maintenance allowance for undergraduates will remain frozen at their 1990–91 cash levels following the introduction of student loans.

  Details of the new rates have been placed in the Library. The increases in these rates are in line with the 2·7 per cent. increase in the overall provision for student maintenance envisaged in the autumn statement.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the income scale which will apply to the assisted places scheme in Scotland in 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For school session 1993–94, I propose to lay regulations before the House in due course providing for progressive parental contribution for one assisted pupil in relation to family income as follows:

  Parental contribution

  Part of relevant income to which the specified percentage applies

  percentage

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,356 but does not exceed £10,173

  9

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,173 but does not exceed £11,005

  12

  That part (if any) which exceeds £11,005 but does not exceed £ 12,654

  15

  That part (if any) which exceeds £12,654 but does not exceed £15,189

  21

  That part (if any) which exceeds £15,189 but does not exceed £18,500

  24

  That part (if any) which exceeds £18,500

  33

  The relevant income scale is open ended, but the remission can, of course, be given only where the parental contribution is less than the school tuition fee.
  273

  Health Service Suspensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS hospital doctors and consultants are currently under suspension pending inquiries and disciplinary action.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to monitor the proportion of construction and construction-related jobs associated with the Skye bridge contract which are being secured by local labour; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 14 May 1993]: The contractor issues a monthly progress report

  HIV/AIDS

  Drugs

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  592,328

  620,729

  96,381

  100,000

  Ayrshire and Arran

  460,032

  543,936

  189,572

  195,000

  Borders

  147,846

  153,000

  23,862

  25,000

  Dumfries and Galloway

  207,767

  235,222

  34,377

  37,000

  Fife

  465,235

  481,773

  70,395

  75,000

  Forth Valley

  473,000

  449,000

  56,094

  63,000

  Grampian

  1,233,067

  1,235,000

  102,863

  107,000

  Greater Glasgow

  4,188,787

  4,559,968

  772,956

  788,000

  Highland

  288,595

  324,940

  46,949

  36,000

  Lanarkshire

  657,667

  708,000

  109,480

  115,000

  Lothian

  7,592,400

  7,300,000

  629,456

  640,000

  Orkney

  26,739

  28,454

  4,876

  5,500

  Shetland

  30,892

  33,392

  5,404

  6,500

  Tayside

  2,589,583

  2,643,000

  260,795

  265,000

  Western Isles

  47,062

  47,062

  8,650

  9,000

  State Hospital

  —

  34,000

  —

  —

  Total

  119,001,000

  19,397,476

  2,412,110

  2,467,000

  1 Includes £500,000 to enable health boards to implement recommendations of the ministerial AIDS task force.

  Access to Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the range of charges made by local authorities in Scotland for copies of registers requested by the public under the public access to information provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: This information is not held centrally. It is a matter for local authorities to set reasonable charges for providing copies of information under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Community Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a system of dowry funding to the community care arrangements in Scotland equivalent to that operated in other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: My right hon. Friend has no such plans. In Scotland we have adopted alternative arrangements to facilitate the transfer of resources from health boards to local authorities to reflect the shift in the balance or responsibilities that is
  274
  which includes a breakdown of sub-contractors and work force engaged on the contract. The proportion of local sub-contractors and labour can be determined from the details given.

  HIV and Drugs Services
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was given to each health hoard in Scotland for HIV/AIDS and drugs services in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: The proposed allocation of monies to each health board in Scotland for HIV/AIDS and drugs services is shown in the table:

  associated with the transfer of patients from long-stay hospitals into the community. Those arrangements were arrived at after consulation with all relevant interests.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the infant mortality rate in each Scottish parliamentary constituency over the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: As my hon. Friend the then Minister for Health and Education told the hon. Gentleman in response to his previous question on 7 June 1991 at column 320, it is not our practice to quote infant mortality rates for small areas such as individual parliamentary constituencies, because such comparisons are likely to be misleading. Infant mortality in Scotland is at an all-time low (only 6·8 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1992) and most Scottish constituencies have fewer than 10 infant deaths a year. If these small numbers of deaths are divided by the very much larger numbers of live births to give a rate per thousand, the effect of even one untimely death is such as to make the rate swing sharply up or down, making its use for comparision between areas, or between years, of little value.

  I am therefore appending a table showing the infant mortality rates for Scotland and the number of infant deaths in each constituency for each of the last five years.
  275

  Infant mortality rate for Scotland and numbers of infant deaths by Parliamentary constituency, Scotland, 1987–1992 (provisional figures for 1992)

  Deaths per 1,000 live births

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Scotland

  8·5

  8·2

  8·7

  7·7

  7·1

  6·8

  Angus East

  4

  11

  9

  8

  5

  4

  Argyll and Bute

  10

  7

  10

  8

  9

  8

  Ayr

  4

  6

  11

  8

  7

  4

  Banff and Buchan

  5

  5

  10

  6

  5

  10

  Caithness and Sutherland

  6

  4

  6

  1

  1

  3

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  9

  10

  9

  5

  10

  11

  Central Fife

  16

  6

  7

  8

  6

  3

  Clackmannan

  7

  9

  9

  7

  7

  8

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  5

  7

  6

  6

  3

  7

  Clydesdale

  8

  11

  6

  8

  5

  9

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1

  3

  8

  4

  5

  3

  Cunninghame North

  7

  7

  9

  5

  3

  10

  Cunninghame South

  13

  13

  8

  4

  14

  7

  Dumbarton

  5

  17

  7

  12

  8

  8

  Dumfries

  10

  10

  16

  6

  10

  4

  Dunfermline East

  12

  11

  9

  6

  10

  4

  Dunfermline West

  13

  11

  6

  10

  2

  12

  East Kilbride

  4

  8

  10

  3

  6

  5

  East Lothian

  6

  8

  3

  4

  3

  7

  Falkirk East

  10

  7

  12

  7

  5

  5

  Falkirk West

  6

  4

  11

  8

  7

  2

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  7

  5

  7

  4

  9

  9

  Gordon

  6

  9

  5

  9

  9

  7

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  9

  12

  5

  12

  7

  8

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  14

  11

  15

  9

  8

  7

  Kincardine and Deeside

  9

  9

  3

  6

  6

  8

  Kirkcaldy

  7

  4

  6

  5

  6

  7

  Linlithgow

  6

  7

  11

  5

  8

  6

  Livingston

  17

  12

  12

  11

  10

  8

  Midlothian

  7

  7

  9

  10

  5

  5

  Moray

  8

  8

  8

  12

  1

  5

  North East Fife

  4

  3

  9

  3

  3

  3

  North Tayside

  8

  3

  8

  7

  8

  4

  Orkney and Shetland

  4

  2

  4

  2

  7

  3

  Perth and Kinross

  11

  6

  8

  11

  7

  8

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  6

  8

  7

  5

  4

  3

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  12

  7

  5

  9

  7

  7

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  5

  0

  2

  9

  1

  3

  Stirling

  5

  11

  6

  6

  7

  6

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  11

  9

  6

  7

  4

  6

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  5

  6

  3

  4

  6

  4

  Western Isles

  2

  2

  1

  3

  2

  2

  Aberdeen North

  16

  12

  6

  5

  5

  7

  Aberdeen South

  5

  11

  10

  8

  5

  4

  Dundee East

  7

  12

  8

  10

  6

  5

  Dundee West

  5

  7

  4

  7

  5

  5

  Edinburgh Central

  4

  4

  6

  3

  6

  10

  Edinburgh East

  10

  7

  3

  11

  8

  10

  Edinburgh, Leith

  11

  8

  8

  15

  9

  9

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  12

  8

  11

  8

  6

  7

  Edinburgh South

  7

  6

  8

  8

  11

  6

  Edinburgh West

  8

  4

  8

  2

  7

  3

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  8

  4

  7

  3

  8

  5

  Glasgow Central

  11

  6

  4

  5

  9

  11

  Glasgow, Garscadden

  9

  9

  3

  8

  10

  6

  Glasgow, Govan

  2

  9

  10

  5

  4

  8

  Glasgow, Hillhead

  5

  6

  7

  0

  4

  10

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  10

  11

  12

  10

  3

  9

  Glasgow, Pollok

  7

  6

  14

  9

  13

  8

  Glasgow, Provan

  7

  18

  9

  6

  10

  10

  276 277

  Deaths per 1,000 live births

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Glasgow, Rutherglen

  13

  2

  10

  8

  4

  3

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  7

  7

  6

  5

  3

  4

  Glasgow, Springburn

  7

  8

  11

  9

  9

  6

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  4

  5

  5

  12

  5

  7

  Hamilton

  2

  8

  11

  11

  9

  1

  Monklands, East

  12

  7

  8

  4

  6

  10

  Monklands, West

  2

  9

  5

  8

  14

  7

  Motherwell, North

  16

  6

  8

  11

  15

  6

  Motherwell, South

  7

  7

  6

  9

  7

  1

  Paisley, North

  7

  9

  6

  10

  6

  6

  Paisley, South

  10

  8

  6

  9

  4

  7

  SCOTLAND

  563

  543

  554

  510

  473

  449

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nominations he received for the positions on Argyll and Clyde health board which fell vacant on 31 March; which individuals, parties or organisations submitted these nominations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Total nominations received

  194

  Self-nominations

  162

  Parties or organisations

  32

  There is a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to seek nominations for membership of health boards from specified bodies including local authorities and organisations representing the health professions. On this occasion it was decided in addition to place public advertisements relating to NHS trusts as well as health boards. Organisations which responded in respect of Argyll and Clyde were: univeristy of Strathclyde, Paisley chamber of commerce, British Medical Association, Scottish Trades Union Congress, Inverclyde Community Care Forum, British Red Cross Society (Dunbartonshire area), Bank of Scotland, Scottish Association of Care Home Owners, Argyll and Bute district council, Renfrewshire Enterprise Limited, Arthritis Care, Strathclyde regional council, Renfrew district council, Scottish National Housing and Town Planning Council and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. The hon. Member himself made two nominations.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have been received by(a) the Scottish Office and (b) the Scottish ambulance service about the operation of that service in the Argyll and Clyde health board area in each month since January 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: The number of complaints received are as follows:
  278

  Month

  Scottish Office

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  1992

  January

  —

  4

  February

  —

  —

  March

  —

  4

  April

  —

  2

  May

  —

  4

  June

  —

  5

  July

  —

  1

  August

  —

  3

  September

  2

  5

  October

  1

  6

  November

  —

  6

  December

  —

  2

  1993

  January

  3

  7

  February

  1

  8

  March

  —

  6

  April

  3

  7

  In proportion to the average number of patients carried each month of 12,500, the number of complaints is relatively small at approximately 0·03 per cent. Of patients dealt with. This is broadly similar to other areas in the west of Scotland. However, the Scottish ambulance service takes all complaints seriously and will investigate these promptly. The senior managers take appropriate action to remedy any practices or procedures which have been deficient and to discipline any member of staff who has failed to comply with the appropriate instructions. A senior ambulance officer will usually visit the complaint to explain and apologise where the service was not at the required standard. The Scottish ambulance service patient charter sets out the standards aimed at and the procedure for making complaints. Copies of the charter have been widely distributed and its contents are made known on a regular basis to patients and relatives being conveyed by the service.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Argyll and Clyde health board has for the disposal or utilisation of the former clinic at Quarry street/Church street, Johnstone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: The former clinic premises have been advertised for sale by selling agents appointed by Argyll and Clyde health board.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the organisational structure of Scottish Homes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: It is the responsibility of Scottish Homes to devise an organisational structure capable of delivering the objectives contained in its strategic plan, which has to be approved annually by my right hon. Friend. The creation of any new post in the organisation at a level equivalent to grade 5 or above in the civil service requires the prior approval of my Department.

  Royal Alexandra Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on refurbishing or improving the administration areas of the Royal Alexandra hospital in each of the past five years; how much is planned to be spent in(a) the current financial year and (b) the future financial years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: Expenditure on refurbishing and improving all administration areas including those for clinicians and their administrative support staff within the Royal Alexandra hospital over the past five years was as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  10,000

  1989–90

  16,000

  1990–91

  365,500

  1991–92

  28,100

  1992–93

  115,500

  Planned expenditure on administration areas in 1993–94 is £2,000. There are no further expenditure plans for such areas at present.

  Further Education College Principals
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many principals of further education colleges in Scotland received bonus payments following the colleges' incorporation in April; how such payments were authorised; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Information on bonus payments to principals is not held centrally.

  From 1 April 1993 the employers of further education college staff, including principals, are boards of management. Remuneration is for them to determine.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who authorised payment of bonuses to further education college principals in the year to 1 April.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: Prior to 1 April 1993, principals of further education colleges were employees of education authorities. Any bonuses paid would be for them or college councils to authorise, having regard to their statutory powers.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) which further education college principals received bonus payments in the year to 1 April;
  280
  (2) from which budgets bonuses to further education college principals came in the year prior to 1 April.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: This information is not held centrally.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount the weighted average price of(a) services, other than foreign holidays, and (b) goods other than food, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, fuel, petrol and oil covered by the retail prices index has risen since January 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available in the form requested and can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with respect to the exclusion from the calculation of the retail price index of such increases as are the result of Government intervention on interest rates.

  Mr. Nelson
  The retail prices index includes the cost of mortgage interest payments as part of the housing costs of those who are buying their own home. Because of the sensitivity of this component of the RPI to changes in interest rates, it is better when assessing underlying inflationary pressures to look at changes in the index for all items other than mortgage interest payments.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase since January 1987 in the costs of(a) mortgage interest, (b) electricity, (c) entertainments and recreation and (d) books and newspapers relative to the change in the retail prices index.

  Mr. Nelson
  The following table gives the information:

  Retail Prices Index January 1987 to March 1993

  percentage increase

  Mortgage interest payments

  40·6

  Electricity

  42·7

  Entertainment and recreation

  75·1

  Books and newspapers

  57·0

  All items

  39·3

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the materials purchased by each of the selected broad sectors of industry listed in table 18.3 of the Annual Abstract of Statistics 1992 was imported; what was the corresponding figure in 1983; and if he will provide an estimate, in each case, for the years 1968, 1973 and 1979 together with figures for changes in weighted output and for import penetration from the (i) EEC, (ii) non-EEC and (iii) total, ignoring the changing industrial and import classification, but giving overlapping figures as appropriate.

  Mr. Nelson
  Estimates of the import content of materials purchased by manufacturers are available for
  281
  1968, 1972, 1974, 1984 and 19851. These estimates, the most detailed available, are available in the Library. Estimates for 1990 will be published towards the end of this year.
  1 "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1968", table 3; "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1972"; "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1974"; "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1979"; "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1984"; "Input-Output Tables for the United Kingdom, 1985".

  The following table shows consistent estimates of net output for the years 1968, 1973, 1979, 1983 and 1990. More detailed estimates are unavailable prior to 1978.

  Published

  Levels of Output (Index of Production 1985 = 100)

  1985

  1968

  1973

  1979

  1983

  1990

  Weights

  Group

  26

  21–22

  Metals

  140·7

  138·9

  118·5

  94·2

  121·3

  35

  23–24

  Other Minerals

  103·2

  129·3

  114·5

  96·8

  113·4

  69

  25

  Chemicals

  60·9

  81·6

  93·5

  90·6

  118·3

  2

  26

  Man-made fibres

  154·1

  226·2

  176·4

  100·6

  117·2

  37

  31

  Metal goods nes

  135·5

  143·1

  122·9

  96·5

  110·8

  85

  32

  Mechanical engineering

  117·2

  125·6

  118·0

  94·3

  112·3

  98

  33–4–7

  Electrical and instrument engineering

  56·5

  74·9

  79·5

  84·4

  125·4

  38

  35

  Motor Vehicles and parts

  141·8

  156·6

  131·5

  95·2

  121·6

  37

  36

  Other transport equipment

  111·1

  110·4

  100·6

  104·0

  129·7

  91

  41–42

  Food, drink and tobacco

  82·0

  94·6

  99·3

  99·5

  106·4

  22

  43

  Textiles

  142·4

  152·2

  123·4

  93·4

  92·4

  25

  44–45

  Clothing and footwear

  95·2

  105·1

  108·9

  91·9

  98·6

  71

  47

  Paper and printing

  98·7

  111·3

  109·5

  93·4

  133·9

  55

  46–8–9

  AH other manufacturing

  95·0

  118·1

  113·8

  93·8

  132·3

  691

  2–4

  All manufacturing

  96·2

  110·5

  106·0

  93·8

  118·4

  Training Costs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been conducted by his Department into the feasibility of schemes allowing employees to set their training costs against income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We considered various schemes for tax relief for employees' training before introducing in 1991 a new income tax relief for vocational training. This vocational training relief is available to taxpayers and non-taxpayers and so benefits not just employees who pay income tax but also those outside the labour training to get back to work.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if domestic fuel bills can be zero-rated in later years after being subject to a positive rate of VAT; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Under the current EC sixth VAT directive agreed by the United Kingdom in 1976 an existing zero rate of VAT can be continued. Without a change in this directive a zero rate cannot be created, or reintroduced if ended as is proposed from next April for domestic fuel and power supplies. The directive can be changed only by the unanimous agreement of all member states.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effect of the fall in interest rates and the real exchange rate between
  282
  Estimates of import penetration for 1968 to 1989 are available in the Library2. Separate estimates for import penetration from EC and non-EC countries are not available.
  2 "The home and export performance of United Kingdom industries", Economic Trends, August 1977—for a 1968 estimate; "Manufacturing industry in the seventies: an assessment of import penetration and export performance", Economic Trends, June 1980-for annual estimates 1970 to 1979; "MQ12 Import penetration and export sales ratios for manufacturing industry"—for quarterly estimates 1975 Q4 to 1989 Q1.

  (a) October 1981 and November 1982 and (b) June 1985 and April 1987 on economic recovery in (i) 1982–85 and (ii) 1987–89.

  Mr. Nelson
  There are a large number of influences on economic activity at any one time, and it is impossible properly to assess the effects of interest rate and real exchange rate changes in isolation.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what investigations his Departments have been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Departments to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Nelson
  Her Majesty's Treasury has not been subject to any investigations by the Data Protection Registrar.

  Peru (Debt)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Government to Government debt is owed by the Government of Peru to Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Nelson
  Outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom Government by Peru in respect of credits guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) and loans advanced by the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) amounts to £112 million, a large proportion of which was recently rescheduled by the Paris Club of creditor nations.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average increase in output per head in manufacturing and non-manufacturing(a) since 1979 and (b) from 1963 to 1973.

  Mr. Nelson
  Between 1979 and 1992, manufacturing output per head increased by 63·4 per cent. which is equivalent to an increase of 3·8 per cent. compounded over the 13 years.

  In the 10 years from 1963 to 1973, manufacturing output per head increased by 50·7 per cent. This is equivalent to an increase of 4·2 per cent. compounded over the 10 years.

  Output per head in non-manufacturing industries is not measured separately.

  Small Firms Corporation Tax
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firms currently pay small firms corporation tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  About 300,000 companies are charged to corporation tax at the small companies rate and a further 30,000 receive marginal small company relief.

  Tobacco Taxes
  Mr Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised by tobacco taxes in 1979 and 1992, with figures adjusted for inflation.

  Sir John Cope
  Receipts from excise duties on tobacco products were as follows:

  £ million

  Nominal

  1992 prices

  1978

  2,153

  5,970

  1992

  6,417

  6,417

  National Sustainable Strategy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the role of his Department in the drawing up of the first United Kingdom national sustainable strategy; how many civil servants in his Department will be involved in the drawing up of the plan; and what measures are being undertaken to raise awareness regarding sustainability among the departmental staff involved.

  Sir John Cope
  My Department will be playing a full part in the preparation of the United Kingdom's report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development which is being co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The number of civil servants involved will depend upon the report's contents.

  Foreign Entertainers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax has been yielded in each separate tax year under the foreign entertainers legislation in the Finance Act 1986; how much of this revenue is due to tax liabilities in each year; and how much of this revenue is due to tax liabilities from past years and interest charged upon such liabilities.
  284
  Mr. Dorrell
  The following is the information:

  Yield (£) relating to:

  Actual year

  Previous year

  Total

  11987–88

  6,921,507

  3,178,043

  10,099,550

  1988–89

  12,436,964

  3,707,230

  16,144,194

  1989–90

  13,259,785

  4,403,960

  17,663,745

  1990–91

  18,003,805

  2,033,597

  20,037,397

  1991–92

  16,146,336

  1,410,536

  17,556,872

  1992–93

  19,953,506

  508,569

  20,462,075

  1 From 1 May 1987.

  The above amounts of tax and interest (which take repayments into account) were obtained from foreign entertainers and sportsmen by the Inland Revenue foreign entertainers unit.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average income for a family of four in Nottinghamshire, or the nearest corresponding region, included in or including Nottinghamshire for which figures are available; and what proportion of that income is spent on tax, including value added tax and national insurance in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: The table shows the available information—average household income, and income tax and employees' national insurance contributions as percentages of household income per household, for Nottinghamshire, for the calendar years 1988 to 1990.

  Household income for Nottinghamshire

  1988

  1989

  1l990

  Household income per household (£ per year)

  15,890

  17,337

  18,856

  Income tax as percentage of household income

  14·0

  12·3

  12·6

  Employees' national insurance contributions as percentage of household income

  4·0

  3·4

  2·4

  1 Provisional

  Notes:

  1. Total household income based on the National Accounts definition of household income.

  2. County estimates consistent with the date to be published in the Regional Accounts article in the May 1993 issue of "Economic Trends", and the national estimates published in the 1992 Blue Book.

  3. County breakdown of income tax based on sample survey of Inland Revenue records, and employees' national insurance contributions based on sample of records held by Department of Social Security. Estimates at this level of detail are prone to large sampling errors.

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of income paid in tax, including national insurance and VAT, paid by a family with two children and earnings of(a) £10,000, (b) £15,000, (c) £20,000 and (d) £45,000 in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: The figures are given in the table.
  285

  Total tax payments as a proportion of income for married couple with two children, 1988–89 to 1992–93

  Per cent, of earnings

  £10,000

  £15,000

  £20,000

  £45,000

  1988–89

  37·0

  39·7

  39·4

  44·4

  1989–90

  35·0

  38·3

  38·8

  43·5

  1990–91

  33·2

  37·0

  38·2

  42·9

  1991–92

  33·4

  37·3

  39·2

  42·7

  1992–93

  31·7

  36·1

  38·2

  42·2

  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households only have income from employment, receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and have one earner, who is assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. The estimates of indirect taxes exclude rates/Community Charge and are based on equations derived from the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. They are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved.

  Foreign Holidays
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the price of foreign holidays, as shown in the retail prices index, has increased since January 1987; what contribution the Government made to that increase; and what has been the effect on the balance of payments and on output and employment in the British tourist industry and on 1992 bookings in United Kingdom tourist destinations compared with the number of overseas holidays.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: A price index for foreign holidays has only been compiled for use in the retail prices index since February this year, following the recommendation of the RPI advisory committee. It is not possible properly to isolate the effects of the price of foreign holidays n the balance of payments, output and employment in the British tourist industry; or on 1992 bookings in United Kingdom tourist destinations compared with the number of overseas holidays.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Business
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines his Department issues to companies dealing with small businesses which do not hold BS5750.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department does not issue guidelines to industry o the use of BS5750. The decision whether or not to specify the standard is a commercial one for purchasers, many of whom find it useful in providing assurance of quality control and satisfaction of customer needs.

  BS5750 should be relevant to small companies as well as larger ones, and indeed many have found that it brings significant advantages in terms of greater efficiency and better quality control. There may, however, be circumstances in which specification of the standard would be inappropriate, and purchasers would be wise to ensure that the standard is not applied indiscriminately.

  Environmental and Technological Development
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his plans to amalgamate the DEMOS and ETIS schemes for assisting environmental and technological developments in industry; what the new scheme will be called; and how much money is likely to be available for it.

  Mr. Eggar
  The DEMOS and ETIS schemes will complete their three-year term in September 1993. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment are currently considering what future support might be appropriate to encourage innovation by industry in environmental technology. No decision has yet been taken. An announcement will be made should Departments proceed with any new scheme.

  Sanitary Disposal Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the Sanitary Medical Disposal Services Association.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  International Energy Agency Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution was made by his Department to the International Energy Agency's recent report, "World Energy Outlook to 2010"; and what assessment he has made of the analysis adopted in the report on carbon dioxide emissions from the energy sector.

  Mr. Eggar
  The "World Energy Outlook to 2010" was produced as a background paper by the IEA secretariat to inform discussion at the IEA ministerial governing board meeting on the 4 June 1993. The IEA secretariat has presented its analysis to member countries at routine IEA meetings, though the report's conclusions are those of the IEA secretariat alone. My Department is examining the details of the report.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representation his Department had at the meeting of the European Safeguards Research and Development Association in the Vatican City in May.

  Mr. Eggar
  Two of my officials were present at the recent meeting of the European Safeguards Research and Development Association in the Vatican City in May.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry has been the subject of one complaint, in August 1990, in relation to a reported breach of principle 7 (subject access),
  287
  of the Data Protection Act. Provisions to protect the confidentiality of complainants have prevented a full review of records in the time available. To date, no record has been identified of the complaint being referred to my Department for action.

  If my continuing inquiries indicate to the contrary, I will respond further to the hon. Member.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, column 533, what boundaries he intends to use in examining the constituent parts of London for consideration of designating assisted areas; and on what basis he will calculate figures for unemployment in those areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the review of the assisted areas map our consideration of large travel-to-work areas, including London, is taking into account relevant facts about all their constituent parts. Travel-to-work areas are the smallest areas for which reliable unemployment rates are available. We are, however, taking into account the unemployment data which are available at ward and local authority level, such as numbers of unemployed. The review consultation document made it clear that other criteria, including inner city and urban problems, will also be considered.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what impact assessment for dry cleaning businesses was carried out by his Department following the Montreal agreement on chlorofluorocarbons in terms of the costs involved and on the viability of such small businesses.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: It is for Departments leading negotiations, in this case the Department of the Environment, to assess the compliance costs of international commitments which have an impact on business. However, DTI commissioned a study into the use of CFCs as solvents in 1992 which highlighted a number of the implications for the dry cleaning sector of the early phasing-out of CFCs.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what notification has been given to dry cleaning businesses of the terms and implications of the Montreal protocol on chlorofluorocarbons for modification for replacement of machinery.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: My Department has publicised the impending phase-out of ozone-depleting substances since the launch of DTI's environment programme in 1989. In addition to regular meetings between officials and representatives of the dry cleaning sector, we have published a series of information leaflets on the issue and most recently distributed over 5,500 "fliers" directly to dry cleaners publicising the latest dates for CFC phase-out and the implications for dry cleaners using CFC 113.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial provision has been made for compensation for businesses, in each constituent part of the United Kingdom, for costs incurred in complying with the EC and United Kingdom measures implementing the 288
  terms of the Montreal agreement banning chlorofluorocarbons (a) overall and (b) in respect of dry cleaning businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: There is no general provision for funding investment in new equipment required to meet higher environmental standards; such subsidies would be contrary to the polluter pays principle. However, normal tax reliefs have been enhanced by the introduction of a 40 per cent. first year allowance for plant and machinery bought in the year ending 31 October 1993. Projects of regional or national benefit may be eligible for regional selective assistance where they create or maintain employment in the assisted areas.

  Enterprise Initiative Scheme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms in receipt of a grant under his Department's enterprise initiative scheme have gone into liquidation during the period covered by the grant; and if he will set out the total value of the relevant grants.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: The DTI subsidy for assisted consultancy projects under the enterprise initiative is paid on project completion. Information on the liquidation of assisted companies is not collected.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department takes to assess the financial viability of firms involved in his Department's enterprise initiative scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: As part of the free business review carried out under the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme, enterprise counsellors must establish that the applicant is financially viable and has sufficient funds to finance its share of a subsidised consultancy project. This involves scrutiny of the applicant's audited accounts, management accounts, assets and liabilities.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies his Department has undertaken of the effectiveness of small business support schemes delivered by training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: The Department of Trade and Industry assumed responsibility for contracting with training and enterprise councils for the delivery of business support programmes on the 1 April 1993. As yet the Department has not undertaken any formal studies of their effectiveness, but plans to do so later in the year.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on which dates he met his European counterparts in the Council of Ministers in the last 12 months; and at which meetings the issue of intervention funding for the shipping industry was discussed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: In the last 12 months I represented the United Kingdom at

  289
  Industry Council meetings on four occasions, on 17 June and 24 November last year and on 19 and 20 March and 4 May this year. Support for the shipbuilding industry was discussed at the 17 June meeting last year and at both meetings this year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Benefits Fraud
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has regarding the contracting out of benefits fraud investigation by local authorities.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Two local authorities have contracted out aspects of their benefit administration and two others are in the process of doing so. None has sought to contract out benefit fraud investigation.

  We fully support authorities which decide to contract out elements of benefit administration that the law permits and we have issued guidance to all authorities which contains the following advice on benefit fraud investigation:
  … Contractors should be alerted to the possibility of claimant fraud/abuse, and contracting out authorities are strongly advised to ensure that measures to detect and prevent fraud/abuse are made a contractual obligation. In view of the specialised nature of fraud investigation, the Department considers that, once the contractor's suspicions are aroused for any reason, full deteails should be passed immediately to the authority to conduct the investigation and direct further action, such as notifying the DSS District Office where Income Support or other Social Security benefits are in payment."

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Protection Rackets
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been in Northern Ireland over the last five years on charges relating to protection rackets.

  Mr. Mates
  There have been 55 prosecutions and 39 convictions in the five years to 11 May 1993.

  Constitutional Talks
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the present status of the inter-party talks concerning Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for all-party talks on the future governance and administration of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the possible resumption of the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the resumption of talks on the future of Northern Ireland.
  290
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current position of the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had on the resumption of the talks process concerning the future of Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick).

  EC Water Directives
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost of implementing EC water directives in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  Compliance with the EC directive on drinking water, urban waste water treatment and bathing water will require a total capital expenditure estimated at £622 million in the period up to 2005.

  Ports Privatisation
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will announce his conclusions on the draft Ports (NI) Order 1993 following its consultation period; and how many representations he has received on the parliamentary procedure that should be applied to individual privatisation proposals.

  Mr. Atkins
  The consultation period ended on 2 April 1993 and I would hope to announce my conclusions by early summer. I have received a total of 52 representations during the consultation process, 18 of which concerned the parliamentary procedure for individual privatisation proposals.

  Rural Planning
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will announce proposals relating to rural planning.

  Mr. Atkins
  An announcement will be made before the summer recess.

  Casement Park Murders
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he is giving to referring to the Court of Appeal convictions arising from the Casement Park murders.

  Mr. Mates
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations relating to the cases of three of those convicted—Mr. Patrick Kane, Mr. Michael Timmons and Mr. Sean Kelly. These, together with issues raised in the recent BBC TV "Rough Justice" programme which featured Mr. Kane's case, are currently being thoroughly examined to see whether or not there are grounds to justify a reference, the normal criterion for which is that there is some new evidence, or other consideration of substance, which has not already been before the courts and which casts doubt on the safety of the conviction. No representations have been received in respect of any other convictions relating to the events surrounding the Casement Park murders.

  North America (Visit)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent visit to North America.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In New York, Washington and Boston, I met a wide range of officials from the Administration, Congressional leaders and prominent Irish-Americans, as well as giving a series of television, radio and press interviews.

  Tourism
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on joint co-operation with the Republic of Ireland regarding tourism.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board and its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland co-operate closely in areas of mutual benefit to tourism on the island of Ireland. Good progress continues on initiatives such as the international reservation systems covering all of Ireland, known as Gulliver, and with joint marketing activities. I have met my counterpart in the South twice since their general election and we are keen to find new areas for potential co-operation.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are currently operating for the teaching of religious education in all schools; what percentage of the curriculum is devoted to the teaching of Christianity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  All schools are required to provide religious education for all pupils. In schools under the control of the education and library boards, such education must be undenominational and based on the Holy Scriptures. In voluntary schools religious education is under the control of the school managers. On a phased basis, beginning in September 1993, a core syllabus, approved by all the main churches in Northern Ireland and entirely Christian in content, will become compulsory for all schools, as part of the new statutory curriculum. The Northern Ireland Curriculum Council has been asked to produce guidance for schools as to how a wider

  31 March 1979

  31 March 1993

  Number

  Whole-time equivalent

  Number

  Whole-time equivalent

  Trained nurses

  10,787

  9,253·6

  14,949

  12,313·8

  Other nurses

  3,444

  2,964·7

  3,889

  3,283·0

  Student nurses

  4,089

  4,066·6

  760

  755·8

  Total

  18,320

  16,284·9

  19,598

  16,352·6

  The figures for 1993 do not include 1,427 Project 2000 students.
  292
  approach, incorporating study of other world religions, might be adopted and implemented within schools' total RE programme.

  Legislation (Delays)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to reduce delays between Acts of Parliament for England or Great Britain and the corresponding Orders in Council for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Secretary of State is aware of the concerns which Northern Ireland MPs have expressed recently and we are continually looking at ways of minimising the time it takes to process legislation in Northern Ireland.

  Care Homes
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the numbers of people in independent care homes and statutory homes at 31 January and 31 March.

  Mr. Hanley
  Approximately 2,921 and 12,247 beds were available in statutory and independent homes respectively at 31 January 1993, compared with approximately 2,735 and 12,852 at 31 March. It is not known how many of these beds were occupied on the dates in question.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers of children requiring remedial education, in each education and library board area in Northern Ireland, have had specific training to enable them to identify children suffering from dyslexia.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nurses
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many nurses were employed in Northern Ireland(a) in 1979 and (b) at the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Confessions (Access to Solicitors)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will introduce legislation to give people being interrogated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary the opportunity of access to a solicitor before signing any confession.
  293
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  No. The rights of those detained under the emergency legislation are already protected by extensive statutory safeguards. These include the right to consult with a solicitor, which can be delayed only in certain specified circumstances, and only for a maximum of 48 hours. Confessions are inadmissible if obtained by torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the use or threat of violence. If prima facie evidence is adduced that the accused was subjected to such treatment, the onus is on the prosecution to satisfy the court that the statement was not improperly obtained. The courts also have a wide discretion to exclude a confession if it appears appropriate to do so in order to avoid unfairness to the accused or otherwise in the interests of justice.

  Interrogation Centres
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will specify cases, including dates, of people who have been awarded compensation by Her Majesty's Government as a result of maltreatment by the RUC at Castlereagh interrogation centre.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of a statistical analysis, prepared by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, of claims for compensation concluded during the financial years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 arising from allegations relating to detention in holding centres.

  The Police Authority paper shows that during this three year period 200 such claims were finalised. Most of the alleged incidents giving rise to these claims occurred during the period 1985–89, though some go back to the late 1970s. In 127 of the 200 cases assault was alleged.

  Compensation was paid in 123 cases (62 per cent.). In only 27 of these, however, was alleged assault one of the grounds on which payment was made; payments in the remaining cases related to allegations of wrongful arrest, false imprisonment (including overholding), loss of property or other causes.

  Of the 27 cases where payments were made on the basis of alleged assault, nine arose from incidents outside the holding centres themselves, including five from a single incident involving the use of plastic handcuffs. In only 18 cases, therefore, were damages paid where alleged assault inside a holding centre was a factor. These cases were, of course, dealt with on the civil burden of proof, assessed on the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

  The total payment in cases in which alleged assault was found to be a factor was £69,900; the total payment in all others cases was 136,474.

  The Government welcome the publication of this analysis, which confirms the impression of Lord Colville, recorded in his report of the operation in 1992 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, that in only a small minority of cases arising from detention in the holding centres were damages paid on the basis of alleged assault. It also demonstrates how misleading has been much coverage of this issue, in the press and elsewhere.

  It of course remains the firm position of both the Government and the RUC that any ill-treatment of persons in custody is wholly unacceptable. All complaints are investigated by the police, and the police investigation may be directly supervised by the Independent
  294
  Commission for Police Complaints. On completion of a supervised investigation a full report goes to the commission, which is required to issue a statement as to whether or not the investigation has been carried out satisfactorily. All completed files are in any event subject to ICPC scrutiny at the end of the investigation process. The paper may also be referred to the DPP. Any police officer acting improperly may face criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

  The stringent safeguards already in place for those in detention have recently been reinforced by the appointment of an independent commissioner for the holding centres, and will shortly be strengthened still further by the introduction of codes of practice governing the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects. The holding centres, and the police officers who work there, play a vital role in the struggle against terrorism. These measures are intended to enhance still further public confidence that the police have nothing to hide and that persons detained in holding centres are not being illtreated or denied their rights, and also to protect the officers themselves from malicious allegations.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will introduce legislation to enforce the video recording of interviews by the RUC at interrogation centres.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I am not persuaded of the desirability of introducing video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. There is already a formidable array of safeguards to guarantee that the rights of those detained under the emergency legislation are fully respected. These include the recent appointment of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper as independent commissioner for the holding centres.

  "Making Belfast Work"
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all of the educational projects which have been funded by the "making Belfast work" programme in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  The Department of Education (NI) making Belfast work 1990–91 programme

  1. Principal Teachers' Training and Support in Primary and Secondary Schools

  2. Belfast Citizen Advice Bureaux—Premises and Equipment

  3. Mobile Science Gallery

  4. Dairy Farm Library

  5. Community Arts Outreach—Music

  6. Youth Resource Centre—West Belfast

  7. Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme

  8. Action Sport

  9. Youth Club Face Lift—various locations

  10. Ozanam House—Youth Facility Building

  11. Schools Links with Industry

  12. Nursery Schools at New Barnsley, Twinbrook and Finaghy Road North

  13. Nursery Schools at Lenadoon, Ardoyne, Glen Road and Cliftonville Primary School

  14. Literacy/Numeracy in Primary Schools

  15. Literacy/Numeracy in Secondary Schools

  16. Literacy/Numeracy Further Education/Youth Training Programme

  17. Literacy/Numeracy—Belfast Toy and Book Library

  18. Newtownabbey Schools—Information Technology Equipment

  19. Discipline in Schools

  20. Homework Centres in certain Belfast schools

  21. Additional Technology Support in Secondary Schools

  295

  22. Whiterock—Further Education Provision

  23. Shankill Further Education Outcentre

  24. Additional Equipment for Further Education Colleges

  25. Workers Education Association

  26. Women's Education Programme

  27. Corpus Christi—Macrory Park Sports Facility

  28. Corpus Christi refurbishment of school

  29. Equipment for Boxing Clubs

  30. Provision of Lap Top Computers in Secondary Schools

  1991–92 Programme

  1. Principal Teachers' Training and Support in Primary and Secondary Schools

  2. Belfast Citizen Advice Bureaux—Premises and Equipment

  3. Behavioural Unit at Robert Bell Primary School

  4. Mobile Science Gallery

  5. Dairy Farm Library

  6. Community Arts Outreach—Music

  7. Youth Resource Centre—West Belfast

  8. Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme

  9. Action Sport

  10. Schools Links with Industry

  11. Schools Links with European Industry

  12. Nursery Schools at New Barnsley, Twinbrook and Finaghy Road North

  13. Nursery Schools at Lenadoon, Ardoyne, Glen Road and Cliftonville Primary School

  14. Nursery School at Twinbrook

  15. Literacy/Numeracy in Primary Schools

  16. Literacy/Numeracy Belfast Toy and Book Library

  17. Literacy/Numeracy in Secondary Schools

  18. Literacy/Numeracy Further Education/Youth Training Programme

  19. Newtownabbey Schools—Information Technology Equipment

  20. Discipline in Schools

  21. Homework Centres in certain Belfast Schools

  22. Liaison between Home Schools and Other Agencies

  23. Support for Technology and Science in Secondary Schools

  24. Enhanced Environment for Teaching Staff

  25. Additional Technology Support in Secondary Schools

  26. Whiterock-Further Education provision

  27. Shankill Further Education Outcentre

  28. Additional Equipment for Further Education Colleges

  29. Workers Education Association

  30. Women's Education Programme

  31. Equipment for Boxing Clubs

  1992–93 Programme

  1. Principal Teachers' Training and Support in Primary and Secondary Schools

  2. Belfast Citizen Advice Bureaux—Premises and Equipment

  4. Behavioural Unit at Robert Bell Primary School

  5. Information Technology Equipment for Special Schools

  6. Mobile Science Gallery

  7. Dairy Farm Library

  8. Arts and Disability Centre

  9. Youth Resource Centre—West Belfast

  10. Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme

  11. Taughmonagh Youth Club

  12. Action Sport

  13. Belfast Bytes—computer awareness centre

  14. Schools Links with Industry

  15. Schools Links with European Industry

  16. Nursery Schools at New Barnsley, Twinbrook and Finaghy Road North

  17. Nursery Schools at Lenadoon, Ardoyne, Glen Road and Cliftonville Primary School

  18. Nursery School at Brooklands Primary School Ballybeen

  19. Nursery School at Twinbrook

  20. Literacy/Numeracy in Primary Schools

  21. Extension of Literacy/Numeracy in Primary Schools

  22. Literacy/Numeracy Belfast Toy and Book Library

  23. Literacy/Numeracy Ballybeen Toy and Book Library

  24. Literacy/Numeracy in Secondary Schools

  25. Extension of Literacy/Numeracy in Secondary Schools

  296

  26. Literacy/Numeracy Further Education/Youth Training Programme

  27. Newtownabbey Schools—Information Technology Equipment

  28. Discipline in Schools

  29. Homework Centres in certain Belfast Schools

  30. Liaison between Home Schools and Other Agencies

  31. Support for Technology and Science in Secondary Schools

  32. Enhanced Environment for Teaching Staff

  33. Regeneration of Schools in the Inner-city

  34. Technical Support in Science for Schools

  35. Community Literacy Centres

  36. Whiterock—Further Education provision

  37. Shankill Further Education Outcentre

  38. Dunlewey Street Further Education Outcentre

  39. Educational Guidance Service for Adults

  40. Belfast Centre for the Unemployed

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) maintained schools and (b) controlled schools are excluded from benefiting from "making Belfast work" expenditure in Belfast.

  Mr. Hanley
  Within the area of the Belfast education and library board, eight maintained schools and 25 controlled schools are excluded as they are outside the "making Belfast work" initiative catchment area.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent in each of the last three years by the "making Belfast work" programme on educational projects in Belfast.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of £4·434 million was spent in 1990–91, £5·323 million in 1991–92 and £6·405 million in 1992–93.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation of the fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland is operating very well. More than 4,000 firms are registered with the Fair Employment Commission and are monitoring their work force composition. During 1993, over 1,500 companies are required to complete their first three-yearly review of employment practices. Where necessary, these companies will be required to take affirmative action.

  The Fair Employment Tribunal offers real redress to people with a genuine grievance. A number of significant decisions and substantial awards and settlements have already been made.

  The effectiveness of the law is to be formally reviewed by the Government in 1995.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Market Testing
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what market testing procedures have been undertaken by the Benefits Agency; and what has been their total cost.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of market testing within the Benefits Agency is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits
  297
  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. Richard Burden, dated 19 March 1993
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what market testing procedures have been undertaken by the Benefits Agency; and what has been their total cost.
  Market testing is being carried on services within the Benefits Agency (BA) according to the plans published in the Citizen's Charter White Paper "Competing for Quality". Each service area being market tested within BA has to date undertaken the following procedures:

  Set up Steering Groups.

  Set up In-house and Client side teams.

  Set up detailed monitoring and reporting arrangements.

  Undertaken a feasibility study.

  Developed their contract strategy.

  As at 31 March 1993 the cost to BA of the market testing programme is £1,285,444.
  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.

  Child Support Act
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of the tribunals set up as a result of the Child Support Act 1991 are(a) existing magistrates, (b) nominated by trade unions, (c) women, (d) lone parents and (e) under 30 years of age.

  Mr. Burt
  The independent tribunal service (ITS) has, to date, recruited 734 members under the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991. According to information available, 87 are existing magistrates, 102 have been nominated by trade unions, 363 are women, 36 lone parents and seven are under the age of 30.

  As a matter of routine the ITS collects data only on the age and sex of its tribunal members. There may, therefore, be more magistrates, trade union nominees and lone parents than these figures indicate.

  Benefits (Automated Credit Transfer)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, columns 445–46, on automated credit transfer, what proposals his Department made during discussions with banks and building societies to encourage them to persuade pensioners and benefit recipients to open accounts with them; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have made no such proposals.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made as to whether projects for people with drug and alcohol problems, previously funded by his Department, will be given contracts by social services departments.

  Mr. Burt
  This Department has never funded such projects although individual residents in homes which cater for such people may receive social security benefits. The negotiation of contracts for social care is a matter for social services departments acting under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Pregnant Women
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to secure that the full adult rate of income support is paid to pregnant women between the ages of 16 and 24 years, provided that they are both available for work and registered for youth training.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plan.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many and what percentage of(a) attendance allowance claims, (b) new disability living allowance claims and (c) top-up claims since February 1992 have (i) resulted in an award and (ii) been rejected; and if he will publish a breakdown in each case of whether the claim was decided solely on the statement of disability or whether a medical examination, other evidence or both were required;

  (2) what were the average clearance times for (a) new claims, (b) top-up claims and (c) requests for review of disability living allowance at each disability benefit centre for each month since September 1992.

  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. Paul Flynn, dated 19 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 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking (1) how many and what percentage of (a) attendance allowance claims, (b) new disability living allowance claims and (c) top-up claims since February 1992 have (i) resulted in an award and (ii) been rejected; and if he will publish a breakdown in each case of whether the claim was decided solely on the statement of disability or whether a medical examination, other evidence or both were required and (2) what were the average clearance times for (a) new claims, (b) top-up claims and (c) requests for review of disability living allowance at each disability benefit centre for each month since September 1992.
  Number of claims made and decided.
  You asked for the number of new claims and top-up claims for DLA together with the number and percentage of awards and refusals, including reasons for refusal. Annex 1 shows a breakdown of this information together with details of decisions based upon information provided on the claim form, medical examinations and other forms of evidence.
  A further breakdown detailing claims to AA from 1.2.92 to date is shown at Annex 2.
  National average clearance times.
  Performance on DLA is measured in terms of X per cent. of cases cleared in Y days and it is therefore not possible to state an average processing time.
  It may be helpful for me to say at this stage that new DLA claims are dealt with by the regional Disability Benefit Centres (DBC) Details of the clearance times for each DBC for each month between September 1992 and April 1993, inclusive of new claims and those made under the special rules are supplied at table I.
  Top-up claims are dealt with by the Claims Conversion Unit (CCU).
  A breakdown, therefore by DBCs is not available. I have provided details of available information regarding performance at table 2.

  299
  Finally, Disability Living Allowance reviews are dealt with by the Disability Living Allowance Unit (DLAU). No information is, therefore, available in respect of each DBC. Table 3, however provides details of review performance figures for the specified period.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the library.

  Annex 1

  1. Number of claims received February 1992 to April 1993

  Number

  New claims

  562,000

  Top-up claims

  235,000

  AA claims

  671,000

  2. Adjudication officer decisions February 1992 to April 1993

  Number

  As percentage

  New DLA

  Awards

  298,000

  53

  Refusals

  228,000

  41

  3. Adjudication officer decision by evidence type

  New DLA claims

  Top-up claims

  Awards

  Refusals

  Awards

  Refusals

  Statement of disability

  Number

  134,000

  84,000

  124,000

  32,000

  Percentage

  45

  37

  77

  69

  Medical examination

  Number

  64,000

  44,000

  18,000

  4,000

  Percentage

  22

  19

  11

  8

  Other evidence

  Number

  89,000

  74,000

  18,000

  8,000

  Percentage

  30

  33

  11

  17

  Cases with unrecorded evidence type

  Number

  11,000

  25,000

  2,000

  3,000

  Percentage

  4

  11

  1

  6

  Annex 2

  AA65+—May 1992—April 1993

  Awards

  Refusals

  Statement of Disability

  Number

  244,000

  56,000

  Percentage

  59

  43

  Medical Examination

  Number

  67,000

  33,000

  Percentage

  16

  26

  Other Evidence

  Number

  45,000

  13,000

  Percentage

  11

  10

  New claims for DLA September 1992

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Edinburgh

  22

  41

  48

  55

  Newcastle

  35

  63

  36

  37

  Leeds

  44

  66

  83

  90

  Manchester

  38

  60

  79

  80

  Bootle

  27

  52

  66

  74

  Birmingham

  21

  39

  30

  37

  300

  Number

  As percentage

  Others1

  36,000

  6

  Top-up Claims

  Awards

  161,000

  69

  Refusals

  47,000

  20

  Others2

  27,000

  12

  AA Claims

  Awards

  433,000

  —

  Refusals

  133,000

  —

  1 Others - this category includes claims withdrawn, defective claims and claims otherwise disposed of.

  Note: AA statistics prior to April 1992 were kept on a quarterly basis and not monthly. Therefore it is not appropriate to give awards and refusals as a percentage of claims received. Due to rounding percentage figures do not always add up to 100 per cent.

  AA65+—May 1992—April 1993

  Cases with

  Unrecorded

  Evidence Type

  Number

  60,000

  27,000

  Percentage

  14

  21

  Note:—The breakdown of decisions by evidence type for AA are based on the period May 1992 to April 1993 as these statistics were not recorded prior to that period. The figures shown in this table will therefore not agree with those shown in table 2 which shows the number of adjudication officer decisions for the period April 1992 to April 1993. Due to rounding percentage figures do not always add up to 100 per cent.

  Table 1

  Primary Target for DLA normal rules cases in 60 per cent. Other in 30 days and for special rules 80 per cent. in 10 days. Secondary Target for DLA normal rules in 95 per cent. in 55 days and for special rules 90 per cent. in 55 days.
  301

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Bristol

  32

  69

  86

  90

  Cardiff

  34

  60

  59

  61

  Wembley

  36

  63

  91

  92

  Sutton

  33

  59

  55

  64

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  31

  54

  59

  64

  October 1992

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Edinburgh

  21

  41

  48

  55

  Newcastle

  49

  72

  44

  49

  Leeds

  51

  71

  80

  89

  Manchester

  55

  77

  89

  91

  Bootle

  38

  62

  78

  86

  Birmingham

  30

  46

  37

  42

  Bristol

  56

  75

  91

  93

  Cardiff

  54

  74

  77

  80

  Wembley

  45

  68

  91

  92

  Sutton

  49

  68

  69

  80

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  39

  58

  62

  68

  November 1992

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Edinburgh

  35

  54

  60

  66

  Newcastle

  65

  84

  66

  66

  Leeds

  65

  82

  80

  90

  Manchester

  70

  86

  94

  97

  Bootle

  51

  75

  82

  87

  Birmingham

  38

  55

  55

  63

  Bristol

  61

  80

  96

  96

  Cardiff

  63

  82

  84

  89

  Wembley

  56

  77

  93

  96

  Sutton

  53

  72

  69

  80

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  50

  68

  71

  77

  December 1992

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special Rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Edinburgh

  49

  70

  66

  73

  Newcastle

  73

  87

  87

  88

  Leeds

  69

  86

  81

  89

  Manchester

  74

  90

  94

  96

  Bootle

  47

  74

  84

  90

  Birmingham

  38

  62

  54

  59

  Bristol

  70

  86

  89

  92

  Cardiff

  66

  86

  83

  88

  Wembley

  56

  78

  80

  87

  Sutton

  55

  75

  75

  81

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  55

  75

  73

  80

  January 1993

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special Rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Edinburgh

  42

  73

  62

  72

  Newcastle

  69

  90

  95

  98

  Leeds

  62

  85

  83

  89

  302 303

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special Rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Manchester

  67

  87

  92

  95

  Bootle

  41

  80

  86

  89

  Birmingham

  40

  71

  59

  69

  Bristol

  52

  83

  87

  91

  Cardiff

  60

  84

  83

  87

  Wembley

  47

  74

  81

  91

  Sutton

  49

  76

  82

  90

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  49

  76

  76

  83

  February 1993

  Normal Rules Percentage cleared

  Special Rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Edinburgh

  62

  78

  81

  85

  Newcastle

  85

  96

  92

  94

  Leeds

  73

  88

  88

  94

  Manchester

  81

  92

  93

  97

  Bootle

  73

  92

  88

  93

  Birmingham

  56

  76

  82

  87

  Bristol

  72

  89

  93

  96

  Cardiff

  74

  87

  88

  91

  Wembley

  58

  78

  87

  91

  Sutton

  57

  74

  91

  95

  Glasgow

  65

  85

  —

  —

  Great Britain

  61

  77

  85

  90

  March 1993

  Normal Rules Percentage cleared

  Special Rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  in 55 days

  in 10 days

  in 15 days

  Edinburgh

  69

  83

  82

  90

  Newcastle

  87

  98

  99

  99

  Leeds

  80

  92

  89

  95

  Manchester

  83

  94

  94

  96

  Bootle

  81

  94

  94

  97

  Birmingham

  66

  86

  88

  92

  Bristol

  86

  96

  96

  97

  Cardiff

  85

  94

  90

  93

  Wembley

  68

  83

  89

  95

  Sutton

  61

  77

  84

  91

  Glasgow

  62

  85

  75

  75

  Great Britain

  71

  85

  85

  90

  Revised targets from April 1 1993 for normal rules are Primary 65 per cent. in 30 days and Secondary 85 per cent. in 55 days. Only one targets has been set from special rules cases 80 per cent. in 10 days.

  April 1993

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special rules Percentage cleared

  in 30 days

  55 days

  in 10 days

  15 days

  Edinburgh

  76

  96

  92

  96

  Newcastle

  87

  98

  95

  97

  Leeds

  82

  95

  91

  96

  Manchester

  86

  97

  92

  94

  Bootle

  87

  98

  95

  98

  Birmingham

  68

  89

  95

  97

  Bristol

  81

  97

  94

  95

  Cardiff

  78

  93

  84

  91

  Wembley

  76

  90

  81

  91

  Sutton

  67

  86

  83

  89

  Glasgow

  67

  92

  68

  71

  Great Britain

  75

  91

  88

  93

  304 305

  Table 2

  Performance indicators for top-up claims Primary Target 60 per cent, in 55 days Secondary Target 95 per cent, in 75 days

  Normal rules Percentage cleared

  Special rules Percentage cleared

  in 55 days

  in 75 days

  in 10 days

  in 20 days

  1992

  September

  15

  22

  8

  17

  October

  28

  36

  16

  26

  November

  37

  44

  17

  33

  December

  43

  49

  26

  53

  1993

  January

  46

  55

  18

  35

  February

  57

  64

  36

  52

  March

  57

  63

  27

  50

  April

  71

  76

  21

  44

  Table 3

  Performance indicators for reviews

  Primary Target 60 per cent in 55 days

  Secondary Target 95 per cent in 75 days

  Secondary Target 80per cent, in 75 days (from 1 April 1993)1

  Reviews made in 3 months Percentage cleared

  Reviews outside 3 months Percentage cleared

  in 55 days

  75 days

  in 55 days

  75 days

  1992

  September

  35

  61

  6

  10

  October

  30

  50

  46

  60

  November

  23

  40

  53

  65

  December

  18

  36

  40

  53

  1993

  January

  11

  24

  30

  47

  February

  11

  25

  31

  48

  March

  18

  29

  39

  51

  April1

  33

  47

  43

  61

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received in relation to the payment of claims made under the disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received two letters from customers.

  Table 1

  Income Support

  Number of claims received

  Year and month

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  Great Britain

  1990

  April

  28,169

  225,587

  16,526

  270,282

  May

  29,907

  242,903

  16,992

  289,802

  June

  37,346

  240,918

  17,659

  295,923

  July

  44,497

  342,412

  27,174

  414,083

  August

  38,106

  308,532

  21,765

  368,403

  September

  31,456

  275,582

  20,179

  327,217

  October

  37,292

  311,112

  22,332

  370,736

  November

  34,559

  301,536

  20,806

  356,901

  December

  26,234

  219,458

  14,398

  260,090

  1991

  January

  37,589

  348,191

  24,013

  409,793

  February

  33,880

  316,821

  20,466

  371,167

  March

  32,084

  304,012

  18,843

  354,939

  April

  33,415

  302,477

  19,124

  355,016

  May

  31,500

  288,788

  17,957

  338,245

  Income Support
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) applications and (b) payments for income support were made in each month since April 1990 in (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Great Britain.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 18 May 1993]: The information is in the tables.

  Source: Benefits Agency Management Information Statistics.
  307

  Year and month

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  Great Britain

  June

  33,717

  280,075

  17,295

  331,087

  July

  42,008

  379,262

  25,504

  446,774

  August

  34,245

  308,873

  19,226

  362,344

  September

  33,686

  318,382

  21,634

  373,702

  October

  37,771

  337,611

  22,267

  397,649

  November

  34,376

  308,834

  20,415

  363,625

  December

  26,826

  240,685

  16,509

  284,020

  1992

  January

  42,420

  378,328

  23,475

  444,223

  February

  33,876

  305,785

  18,153

  357,814

  March

  35,041

  319,345

  20,236

  374,622

  April

  35,442

  306,390

  19,435

  361,267

  May

  31,334

  261,820

  15,609

  308,763

  June

  38,142

  304,500

  18,485

  361,127

  July

  45,984

  389,330

  26,113

  461,427

  August

  35,050

  299,169

  18,606

  352,825

  September

  38,465

  344,893

  23,421

  406,779

  October

  44,033

  360,429

  23,629

  428,091

  November

  41,073

  329,517

  20,386

  390,976

  December

  32,563

  260,609

  16,357

  309,529

  1993

  January

  35,783

  329,675

  20,661

  386,119

  February

  31,861

  274,720

  16,422

  323,003

  March

  33,983

  295,642

  18,265

  347,890

  Table 2

  Income Support

  Number of awards made

  Year and month

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  Great Britain

  1990

  April

  22,831

  168,292

  12,197

  203,320

  May

  24,585

  190,800

  13,446

  228,831

  June

  30,775

  189,563

  13,423

  233,761

  July

  39,824

  271,378

  22,726

  333,928

  August

  32,781

  258,436

  18,209

  309,426

  September

  26,731

  226,866

  16,633

  270,230

  October

  31,708

  255,825

  18,503

  306,036

  November

  29,455

  245,446

  17,005

  291,896

  December

  21,590

  172,703

  11,689

  205,982

  1991

  January

  32,379

  284,350

  19,416

  336,145

  February

  27,832

  257,467

  16,386

  301,685

  March

  26,550

  245,180

  14,715

  286,445

  April

  26,950

  246,972

  15,311

  289,233

  May

  26,370

  244,353

  14,875

  285,598

  June

  28,134

  236,483

  14,527

  279,144

  July

  36,575

  320,408

  21,484

  378,467

  August

  29,151

  268,283

  16,269

  313,703

  September

  28,629

  274,744

  18,366

  321,739

  October

  32,770

  292,787

  19,282

  344,839

  November

  29,408

  263,167

  17,281

  309,856

  December

  23,485

  204,542

  13,607

  241,634

  1992

  January

  36,884

  323,617

  19,797

  380,298

  February

  28,878

  262,052

  15,185

  306,115

  March

  29,561

  267,826

  16,252

  313,639

  April

  30,492

  258,257

  16,176

  304,935

  May

  26,737

  228,800

  13,084

  268,621

  June

  32,614

  257,926

  14,899

  305,439

  July

  40,148

  337,261

  22,387

  399,796

  August

  30,592

  261,956

  15,794

  308,342

  September

  32,575

  295,457

  19,314

  347,346

  October

  36,535

  305,043

  18,850

  361,428

  November

  34,388

  284,084

  17,637

  336,109

  December

  28,121

  227,863

  14,090

  270,074

  1993

  January

  31,217

  284,892

  17,277

  333,386

  February

  27,323

  240,638

  13,877

  281,838

  March

  29,007

  252,545

  14,775

  296,327

  308 309
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support recipients aged(a) between 18 and 21 years and (b) 21 and 24 years live with one or more of their parents.

  Mr. Burt:
  [holding answer 10 May 1993]: It is estimated that in 1991 there were 250,000 18 to 21-year-olds and 100,000 22 to 24-year-olds receiving the single person rate of income support and living with one or more of their parents.

  Sources:

  1. Caseload estimates for the total number of 18 to 24-year-olds on income support from the 1991 Annual Statistical Enquiry.

  2. Information 18 to 24-year-olds living with a parent was obtained using evidence from the 1989–90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys (modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels).

WALES

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the number of people employed, (b) the number of start-ups and (c) the average pre-tax turnover, for small businesses in Wales for each year since 1983.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the numbers of employees employed in units of different size is available for 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991 from the size-band analyses of the censuses of employment and given in the following summary table:

  Employees in employment in Wales, by size of unit1 (thousands)

  Size of unit (employees)

  September

  1–49

  50–199

  200 and over

  1984

  356·1

  189·4

  319·5

  1987

  364·6

  204·2

  334·1

  1989

  413·4

  209·8

  343·9

  1991

  439·3

  217·4

  287·2

  Source: Size-band analyses of Censuses of Employment. Employment Department (via NOMIS).

  1 Excluding agriculture.

  New VAT registrations give an indication of the number of business start-ups for each year. Firms with a turnover of less than £1 million each year account for over 96 per cent. of the total.

  Number of new VA T registrations

  Year

  Number

  1983

  8,044

  1984

  7,609

  1985

  7,264

  1986

  7,811

  1987

  8,682

  1988

  10,873

  1989

  10,916

  1990

  10,165

  1991

  8,408

  Source: NOMIS

  The following tables give an indication of the distribution of turnover between units, grouped by size, in Wales. Information prior to 1989 is not readily available and the size bands published were changed in 1991.
  310

  Number of units, by turnover size

  Size of unit: turnover

  £

  1989

  1990

  22,000–100,0001

  44,055

  44,762

  101,000–250,000

  13,635

  14,820

  251,000–1,000,000

  7,208

  8,127

  1,001,000 and over

  2,735

  3,070

  Source: PA 1003 Size analyses of United Kingdom businesses. Business Monitor, Central Statistical Office.

  1 £23,000–£100,000 in 1990

  Number of units, by turnover size

  1991

  1992

  Size of unit: Turnover

  £1,000–25,000

  N/a

  16,008

  £26,000–£99,0001

  41,709

  36,130

  £100,000–£249,000

  16,986

  17,223

  £250,000–£999,000

  9,107

  9,430

  £1,000,000 and over

  3,467

  3,486

  1 £24,000–£99,000 in 1991.

  Source: PA 1003 Size analyses of United Kingdom businesses. Business Monitor, Central Statistical Office.

  Self-employed People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of self-employed people in each local authority area in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will indicate(a) the total number of self-employed and (b) the number of self-employed who were not on the Department of Social Security's books.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the number of self-employed people in each local authority area in Wales is available only from the 1991 population census and published in part 1 of the country reports (CEN 91 CR 47 to 54 for Welsh districts and counties) available in the Library of the House. Information on self-employed persons in receipt of benefits is not available for local authority areas.

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on(a) the total number of mortgages held in Wales, (b) the number of mortgages between 3 and 5 months in arrears, (c) the number of mortgages between 6 and 12 months in arrears, (d) the number of mortgages over 12 months in arrears and (e) the number of repossessions in each year from 1981.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the total number of mortgages held in Wales and on mortgage arrears are not available centrally. However, according to the 1991 census of population there were in April 1991, 440,584 owner-occupied dwellings with residents where the dwelling was being purchased through a mortgage or loan. This includes those who were buying in stages from a council, housing association or new town (under shared ownership, co-ownership or equity-sharing schemes).

  For repossessions, information is only available for the numbers of repossession orders made following mortgage possession actions entered in county courts in Wales from 1987 and is shown in the following table. The figures do not indicate how many dwellings have been repossessed through the courts as not all the orders will have resulted in the issue and execution of warrants of possession.
  311

  Repossession orders made following mortgage actions1

  Number

  1987

  2,978

  1988

  3,058

  1989

  2,799

  1990

  4,962

  1991

  7,415

  21992

  7,076

  Source: Lord Chancellor's Office

  1 Figures include suspended orders, whereby the mortgagers are given an opportunity to clear their debts.

  2 Provisional

  Neurofibromatosis
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to what studies are being undertaken by hospitals and medical research institutes in Wales on neurofibromatosis.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As part of an international effort, a research team at the Institute of Medical Genetics, Cardiff is seeking to isolate the defective gene that causes neurofibromatosis.

  Development Partnership, Llanelli
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the partnership accounts of the partnership between the Welsh Development Agency and Llanelli borough council established for the purpose of developing the south Llanelli area.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Each of the parties to the joint venture account for and report their expenditure separately in the normal way. There are no formal accounts for the joint venture as a whole.

  Eye Examinations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many eye examinations were carried out in Wales in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information collected centrally relates to sight tests paid for by family health services committees. No information is available centrally on the number of private sight tests carried out.

  Sight tests paid for by FHSAs1

  Number

  1985

  596,778

  1986

  623,088

  1987

  651,175

  1988–89

  733,469

  1989–90

  292,060

  1990–91

  271,170

  1991–92

  332,240

  1 Sight test paid for during the period (ie the test may have taken place in the previous period).

  Dead Stock (Disposal)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to end the disposal of dead stock to unlicensed premises in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The disposal of dead stock is covered by the Animal By-Products Order 1992. Carcases not 312
  destined for human consumption must be buried, incinerated or disposed of in premises which are approved under article 8 or registered under article 10 of the order, or to knacker yards licensed by local authorities under the Slaughterhouses Act 1974.

  Fox Destruction Clubs
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to regulate unregistered fox destruction clubs in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of disabled persons employed by each local authority in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Tables showing the number and percentage of registered disabled people employed by a wide range of individual public sector employers, including local authorities, are published annually in the Employment Gazette. The information is published with the agreement of the employers concerned. The most recent figures, relating to 1 June 1992, were published in the April 1993 issue of the Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Hydatidosis
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of hydatidosis were recorded in Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of deaths and discharges from NHS hospitals in Wales for which a diagnosis of hydatidosis was recorded is given in the following table for the years 1981–90.

  Year

  Deaths/Discharges

  1981

  27

  1982

  26

  1983

  32

  1984

  34

  1985

  25

  1986

  31

  1987

  25

  1988

  12

  1989

  17

  1990

  19

  This information is obtained from individual hospital activity analysis records. Figures for recent years may differ from those released previously as more information has become available. The figures may still understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharges and deaths. Corresponding data for 1991 and 1992 are not yet available centrally on an all-Wales basis.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress regarding the negotiations for the remuneration of community pharmacists in Wales.
  313
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am very well aware of the contribution small pharmacies make to the local community. The current system of remuneration is unsatisfactory because it is poorly targeted and gives indiscriminate support to pharmacies regardless of the wider contribution they make to the health service. We want to move to a system which, within the overall sum available, will remunerate all pharmacists fairly, is related to their performance in developing a wider health role and which provides an incentive to cost-efficiency. At the same time, there is a need to provide more comprehensive support to pharmacies which provide an essential service to their communities.

  Both pharmacists and health departments are committed to the concept that there should be an allowance to relate the remuneration more closely to the development of a wider professional role. The offer includes a proposal for the payment of a professional allowance to recognise the wider health role of pharmacists. The details are for negotiation with the pharmacists' representatives.

  The pay offer made this year was a first step towards a longer term structure. The proposal included a transitional payment which would have left pharmacies no worse off than in 1992–93.

  Negotiations continue and the pharmacists want to see more clearly the framework for the future before settling details of the year's pay.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing(a) total unemployment rates, (b) unemployment rates among males and (c) unemployment rates among females according to ethnic origin in Wales, indicating the rates of unemployment for (i) whites, (ii) West Indians/Guyanese, (iii) Indians, (iv) Pakistani/Bangladeshi people, (v) African people and (vi) all other ethnic origins.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information available from the 1991 census is given in the following table:

  Unemployed residents aged 16 and over as a percentage of economically active residents in each ethnic group in Wales

  Ethnic group1

  Persons

  Males

  Females

  White

  10·1

  12·6

  6·6

  Black Caribbean

  21·3

  27·7

  11·5

  Black African

  28·0

  31·9

  21·2

  Black other

  23·0

  28·0

  16·0

  Indian

  9·3

  8·7

  10·2

  Pakistani and Bangladeshi

  20·3

  19·9

  21·5

  Other

  13·7

  15·2

  11·1

  All ethnic groups

  10·1

  12·6

  6·7

  1A definition of the ethnic group classification used in the 1991 census is given in 1991 Census "Definitions", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been out of work in Wales, in each of the counties of Wales and each of the 314
  constituencies of Wales for (a) five years, (b) four years, (c) three years, (d) two years, (e) one year and (f) six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All available unemployment claimant figures can be accessed on-line by staff in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the change in the level of unemployment between(a) February 1983 and February 1993 and (b) February 1984 and February 1993; and when he expects to make a statement on the new assisted area status map of Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Between February 1983 and February 1993, unemployment in Wales, adjusted for seasonal factors and discontinuities, fell by 19,900 to 132,100 a drop of 13·1 per cent. The decrease between February 1984 and February 1993 was 24,900, a drop of 15·9 per cent.

  I hope to be able to announce the outcome of the assisted areas review as soon as possible.

  School Tests
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the publication, or otherwise, of the results of key stage 1 and 3 tests in schools this year; and what percentage of schools he expects to carry out these tests.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It remains my intention to publish available national data arising from this year's statutory assessment of seven and 14-year-olds. I wrote recently to the chairmen of governors of all maintained schools in Wales encouraging the participation of their schools in the tests. I hope that they will do so in order that the information can usefully inform the current review of the national curriculum which, is being carried out jointly by the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council.

  EC Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of grants received from the European Community, by each local authority in Wales in 1992.

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

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has not been subject to any investigations by the Data Protection Registrar.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Plutonium: Air Transport Standards
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What developments there have been since the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Safe Transport of Radioactive Material in 1988 that United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Standards on the safe transport of plutonium by air should be brought into line, and why they are still so different that aircraft conforming to IAEA standards are not permitted to overfly the United States.
The Minster of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, several IAEA technical meetings have been held on this issue, and proposals for higher packaging standards and a more severe test regime will be put forward for inclusion in the next issue of the transport regulations.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer, but does he also recall that at the meeting to which he has just referred the Japanese made it clear that they had been receiving quantities of plutonium over a period of years? Why is it that the Japanese are ready publicly to acknowledge the receipt of, I think, 13 separate shipments of plutonium from this country over a long period whereas the Government apparently seek to conceal that fact from Members of this House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's supplementary question is very different from that on the Order Paper.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if I may make so bold as to dispute that point, what we are talking about is the transport of plutonium, which is a very dangerous substance, and plutonium is plutonium whether it is transported to Japan or to the United States of America or from Germany or anywhere else. The question is a simple one: cannot the noble Earl say why this House has been denied information that is available to the Japanese Diet and to the Vienna Conference but which is concealed year after year by the Government from this House? The simple question is: why?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's second supplementary question is still different from that on the Order Paper. The Question on the Order Paper relates to what progress has been made following the advice of ACTRAM (the Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive
1846
Material) to see whether the difference between the IAEA's standards and the American standards could be narrowed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the point raised by my noble friend is very germane to this Question? However, if the Minister chooses not to reply to it, that is within his gift. Perhaps I may refer the Minister to his own reply on the last occasion that this question was raised. On 22nd April, he said, referring to my noble friend:
"The noble Lord should cast his mind back to the ACTRAM report of 1988. It said that the matter should be investigated to see whether the disparities between American standards and IAEA standards should be focused on with a view to bringing them closer together".—[Official Report, 22/4/93; col. 1708.]
Is not five years rather a long time in which to come to any conclusions? Within what sort of timescale would the Minister advise the House that the next issue of transport regulations is likely to come before us for consideration?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's supplementaries are highly relevant. Even as we speak today there is a meeting in Vienna of the second technical committee for the revision of the IAEA regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material. It is considering a report, which it hopes will be published, on the air transport of radioactive material in large quantities or high activity, so discussion is taking place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, yes, but will the Minister give some indication as to when the discussions will come to a conclusion and when we can expect some action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Standing Advisory Group on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material has considered when revision should be made and recommends that major revisions should be made every 10 years. Therefore, what can be agreed by the IAEA will be scheduled for publication in 1996.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that many of us on this side of the House do not accept his thesis that my noble friend's supplementary question was not relevant to the issue that was raised in his Question? Is he surprised that some of us feel very critical that the Minister denies to the House answers to questions that are quite properly put to him?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have never tried to deny an answer which is relevant to the Question on the Order Paper, but I believe that the supplementary question that was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I have heard him claim "irrelevance" at least as often as all the other government spokesmen put together? Might he not adduce from that that he should get some wider briefings in future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that everybody who has the honour to speak at this Dispatch Box gets the widest possible briefing relevant to the Question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, although I accept that the noble Earl is entitled to refuse to answer the question if he so chooses and to decide that in his opinion it is not relevant, since the amount of plutonium transported to Japan is sufficient to manufacture some 70 nuclear bombs are we not entitled to know a little bit about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like me to write to him on that particular point, I undertake to do so—alternatively, he might wish to table such a Question.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the Minister knows the answer, why can he not give it? It is entirely relevant.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it was a different question, and not related to that on the Order Paper.

Royal Naval Reserve: Future 3.7 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty's Government: What are their plans for the future of the Royal Naval Reserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the Royal Naval Reserve will continue to provide a highly valued contribution to our defence capability. Work is continuing on the future role of the reserves and we hope to announce our proposals soon.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that there are widespread rumours to the effect that all 23 of the RNR's sea-training centres are to be closed? If that is true—or even if it is not—will my noble friend undertake to consult widely before implementing any such draconian closures?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, even at the insistence of my noble friend it would be wrong for me to anticipate the results of that review. However, I think that I can certainly anticipate them enough to be able to say that those rumours, of which I am well aware, are very wide of the mark. We greatly value the sea-going role of the RNR, and the value that we place on it has been taken into consideration during the review. There has been wide consultation, particularly with officers of the RNR and members of the TAVRA council—that is, the council of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations—during the past few months.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, on the basis that the Royal Naval Reserve—or part of it at least—uses Rosyth naval dockyard, if I give the Minister a firm assurance that I will not tell anyone else, just
1848
between the two of us, can he tell me if Rosyth naval dockyard is to be awarded the Trident nuclear refitting contract?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, even in your Lordships' House I see that the charm of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has in no way diminished. Nevertheless, despite all his experience and blandishments, I hope that once again I can prevail upon him to contain his impatience on that subject as well as this one.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a Green Paper published by the Government would enable us to discuss what they have in mind for the RNR before anything formal is decided? Would that not be a good way through the problem, because we are so worried about it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I recognise your Lordships' interest in this important question, and, in particular, my noble friend's concern, especially in view of his own distinguished naval career. The phrase current in my department while we have been undertaking this important review is that the report should have the characteristics of a White Paper with green edges. I hope that the green edges element of the phrase reassures my noble friend that there will be a strong element of consultation once the proposals are announced. I reiterate what I told my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. There has already been considerable consultation with officers of the RNR and members of the TAVRA council during the past few months.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his previous answer that there will be a sea-going element in the future of the RNR will receive a great welcome from those serving in it? If he has had those wide consultations, he will be aware, will he not, of the frustration felt by those serving in the RNR about the great delay in reaching conclusions about its future service? Perhaps I may add my voice to the requests that there should be a further period of consultation so that the frustrations which are felt can be dispelled, and a proper role found, especially for those specialists who can occupy most valuable posts in the RNR.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord's naval experience, as well as his experience in other matters, is well known to your Lordships' House. I chose my words most carefully. The conclusion he draws about the sea-going element is something for which I must ask him to wait a little longer. However, I reiterate that we value deeply the sea-going role, and that will be taken into account. So far as concerns the specialist elements, he will be well aware that in all three services the specialist skills of a number of reservists will be even more valued in the future, in view of the smaller forces. And that will be true also of the RNR.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, what ships are now available to the RNR for training purposes? Will they continue to be available in the future? Is there a role

1849
for the Hong Kong patrol squadron here after it is cut off on 30th June 1997 so that the ships may be used for RNR purposes?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, my noble friend makes an interesting suggestion. He knows as well as I do that the present minesweeper fleet vessels, which I believe are colloquially known as the Ton class, are available to a number of RNR units. The role of those ships and the sea-going role of the RNR will be part of the review. I am sorry, but I am sure that my noble friend will understand that I cannot go further than that at this stage.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is correct when he says that there is widespread interest in the RNR? Many of us will be relieved to know that the Government are to introduce a White Paper with green edges. Will we be able to debate that paper when it is published?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. There is no doubt that uncertainty is one of the most debilitating factors in any review. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in particular, for drawing attention to that point. Nevertheless, it may be some evidence of the seriousness with which we regard consultation, and, in particular, the opinion of those engaged in the RNR that the length of time is, perhaps, rather greater than we would ideally wish. So far as concerns the debate, the noble Lord no doubt knows the procedures of your Lordships' House better than I do. He will find many ways of, and opportunities for, raising this important question. Whether I can undertake to do so in government time is something I suggest that the noble Lord takes up with my noble friend the Chief Whip.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people believe that the cuts in all three services are substantially greater than justified by current dangers? Is he aware that for the price of one regular he can obtain the services of eight reservists in all three services? Is not that the type of argument which will persuade the Treasury to stop further cuts in our regular services? Will he say that we shall stop selling the Army reserves' drill halls? The same applies to all three services. Will he say that we will expand and recruit for these reserve services as the others are cut?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The services understand clearly that the reserves play a most important part by acting as a link between the Armed Forces of the Crown and the community. As the services become smaller, that role will become increasingly valuable. On his general proposition, I would say merely—it is something I have said frequently before—that if we need to reverse in any way the measures we have so far taken, as we showed the other day over infantry battalions we are prepared to reconsider the question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is not one of the most important matters affecting the RNR and the Royal Navy itself the fact that they should have
1850
sufficient vessels in which to sail? In those circumstances, is he aware—I am sure that he is—of the devastation caused on Tyneside by the unnecessary closing down of Swan Hunter which has a wonderful history of shipbuilding? Is he further aware that only a few miles from that shipyard Westoe colliery has been closed with the loss of 1,000 other jobs? Is not that a matter which should be given the most serious consideration?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a question of great importance. I do not underestimate it, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it has little to do with the RNR.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that what worries everyone interested in the Royal Navy and the reserve is not what he has been saying from the Dispatch Box but the strong suspicion, due to the Government's recent track record, that decisions will be taken and announced and then discussed when the damage has been done?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am conscious of the amount of the time of your Lordships' House I have taken so far. If I thought that I had the time, I would be able to read out a list of dates and times during the past few months when consultations have taken place in private with the officers and officials I have mentioned in previous answers. Therefore, I am afraid that I must dispute to a large degree the assertion that the noble Lord has just made.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has used the word "review" several times and the words "White Paper with green edges" that the Government are to produce at least once? Will the Minister kindly tell the House when this White Paper with green edges will be produced and whether the Government intend that the White Paper should go wider than the RNR and include the Royal Marine Reserve and the other reserve forces which are vital to our future defence? Why not make it a full defence review in the first place?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hesitated a little when I was answering that part of the question, looked at the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and wondered whether I was wise to use the phrase "White Paper with green edges". If the noble Lord looks at the record I hope that he will see that I said that it was a phrase current in my department to characterise the nature of the review. I was not anticipating the publication of a White Paper with green edges on the subject. Just as we expect an announcement about the RNR, the other reserve forces will be the subject of other announcements.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, without wishing to correct the Minister, in response to his noble friend Lord Mottistone who asked for a Green Paper, is he not aware that he used precisely that expression? If it is to be a Green paper, let it be a Green Paper.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am content as always to rely on the evidence of the Official Report. Let us see what it contains tomorrow morning.

Motor Cycle Noise Act: Implementation
3.20 p.m
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to implement the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is not possible to give a firm commitment and a date for the bringing into force of the 1987 Act and of the regulations to be made under it. However, these will follow as soon as possible after a related amendment to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. We now propose to go out to public consultation on those.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the great majority of cyclists and the organisations which represent them are keen to keep the level of noise from motor cycles as low as is reasonably possible? Is the Minister also aware that the admirable piece of legislation passed in 1987 sought to forbid dealers selling "after market" exhaust systems, which are often designed for the race track, to people owning road bikes? Is not the present position ludicrous in that it is against the law for an individual to use those systems but it is still legal for a dealer to sell them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is precisely why we wish to move as fast as possible in amending the 1986 regulations before moving on to the 1987 regulations. I understand full well the desires of the motor cycle industry to have the 1987 Act implemented. We too wish to have it implemented.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I raised the issue in this House after the legislation came from another place? Little did I believe that it would take so long to be implemented. Will the Minister give a more categoric assurance that the matter will be dealt with more speedily, a few years having elapsed since it was first introduced?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if I could give the House a more categoric date I would be willing to do so. However, we need to go through the procedures and first pass the 1986 amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that we are determined to push on with the matter as fast as possible.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the invention of the fax machine has made the motor cycle a totally unnecessary means of conveyance since its sole purpose is to take documents from one yuppie to another? Furthermore, since the motor cycle endangers the lives of the elderly Members of your Lordships' House who have offices on the other side of the road, would it not be best to prohibit its use altogether?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that some Members of your Lordships' House will agree with my noble friend. However, I have every confidence that there will be others who do not.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House will be surprised that in response to his noble friend's question he did not reply that that was not the Question on the Order Paper, which these days is his characteristic reply? Will the Minister indicate the process of the consultation? How long is it likely to be? Has there been a demand from motor cycling organisations and others for the Act to be implemented as rapidly as possible? Finally, can we expect to have legislation dealing with both matters in the course of the next Session of Parliament?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are going out to consultation on the amendment to the 1986 regulations and there will be four weeks in which to respond. However, as the noble Lord will know, the EC Commission needs to be informed under the standstill directive and will require at least three months in which to notify other member states and to consider the matter. Therefore, the timing remains a little obscure.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, nevertheless, is it not disappointing that six years after the Act was passed—I believe that I was the Minister responsible, but I can hardly remember that far back—it has not yet been implemented? It was broadly welcomed on all sides of the House. Is that connected with the fact that trading standards officers must be able to inspect dealers' premises; and are there enough trading standards officers to carry out that job?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will remember the Private Member's Bill passing through your Lordships' House. He will also be aware that soon after the 1987 Bill was made an Act the European Commission also decided that it was time to do something about motor cycles. Therefore, everything on this side of the Channel had to go into limbo until we received the EC resolution and agreement, which we now have. We have since been working on the problem and hope to work a little faster.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister take it from me that a great deal of the draft legislation coming from Brussels is vigorously opposed not only in the European Parliament but here among motor cyclists? I believe that it would be good if we in this country sorted out our own legislation so that we could at least show the meddling European bureaucrats that our house is in order before they come in through our door?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Viscount said, especially from those Benches and with his Leader sitting beside him. One of the difficulties has been trying to reconcile what is in our legislation and making that work with agreements within the EC.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is perhaps indelicate, if not improper, to be discussing such matters in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington?

Forestry Commission: Planting Programme
3.26 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will state the planned planting programme for the Forestry Commission for the next three years.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Forestry Commission's planned planting programme for the next three years is 10,100 hectares in 1993–94, 9,600 hectares in 1994–95 and 9,500 hectares in 1995–96. Those figures include both new planting and restocking.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the corporate plan of the Forestry Commission to which he has referred states specifically that there will be a run down in planting from the 5,000 hectares last year to 1,000 hectares, which is not the figure he quoted? Will he take into account that 20 years ago, which is a relatively short time in forestry terms, this country planted 42,000 hectares of which the Forestry Commission planted 22,000 hectares? Is that a process of running down in the Forestry Commission—privatisation by stealth—to reduce planting from the 22,000 hectares now in the corporate plan to 1,000 hectares? How is that consistent with the Government's policy promising a steady expansion of forestry?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any contradiction between the figures that I gave and those given by the noble Lord. He is correct; he indicated what is in the Forestry Commission's plan showing the new planting. I accept that what is proposed for the next three years is that the figures should be down to 1,000 hectares. I believe the noble Lord appreciates that government policy is that most of the new planting should be carried out by the private sector. I am pleased to say that during the next three years new planting by that sector is expected to increase to some 18,500 hectares.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend give the House an idea of the proportion of hardwoods and conifers that will be planted under the new planting scheme?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend will appreciate that the trend, which is agreed on all sides of the House, is that there should be a progressive move away from the blanket planting of conifers and towards more broadleaf trees. That is very much reflected in the change in policy which we have adopted. I can give my noble friend detailed figures if he so wishes.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, how is the decision on the area of planting arrived at? Is it a commercial decision freely made by the Forestry Commission or is there a government political hand behind it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I believe that I have clearly indicated that government policy is that most of the new planting should be carried out by the private sector. If the Forestry Commission were to increase its planting programme there would necessarily be a significant degree of public expenditure which, it is considered, we cannot contemplate at the present time. The lower income from timber sales as a result of the slow recovery of timber prices has affected the level of planting by the Forestry Commission.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend able to say whether the replanting carried out by the Forestry Commission on Mottistone Down on the Isle of Wight, which I have asked it to uproot because it is destroying the beautiful scenery, is making progress as an uprooting programme?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there is a degree of precision about my noble friend's question that means that I must write to him to provide a detailed answer.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his figure of 18,500—if that is the figure for private planting—plus 1,000 comes to 19,500 hectares? That is 10,000 hectares short of the Government's declared target. Will the noble and learned Lord take the advice given to him from all quarters of the House—in particular from noble Lords on his own side—that it would be better to build up the Forestry Commission rather than to run it down?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. I consider that if you take the two together —that is, the amount of restocking on Forestry Commission land and replanting by both the Forestry Commission and the private sector—the total figure will average what has been planted annually over the past 20 years.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we suspect that there is a great deal of pressure on the Government by the Treasury to sell off as much Forestry Commission land as possible. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that some experts believe that although the Treasury may think that it will realise £1.7 billion, if there is a necessity to include in the sale an obligation to replant and allow public access that figure will in fact be far less? Therefore, the position may be that the Treasury does not realise that sum of money or that there is very little planting. Is that what the future holds if we follow that route?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. I wish to emphasise, because it is of concern to the noble Lord and some of his noble friends, that under access arrangements introduced in October 1991 the commission gives advance notice to local authorities of its intended sales and offers to enter into legal agreements which will provide continued public access. I repeat that it is intended that the majority of new planting should be done by the private sector.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Housing and Urban Development Bill may be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour. In that event, the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill will be taken.
Perhaps I should inform the House that the Committee stage of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill will be postponed to a later date.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Tuesday next and the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill through its remaining stages on Thursday 27th May.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to the Non-Domestic Rating (No. 2) Bill. I do so as a member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who is the chairman of that committee. Is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that not only is that Bill one of extremely recent introduction but that the papers to enable our committee to consider it arrived only this morning? The committee is due to meet on Monday afternoon to consider those papers. It may cause problems if we wish to comment to your Lordships on a Bill which is due to go through all its remaining stages on the following day.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend why it is necessary to curtail discussions on those two quite important and very interesting measures. They are best discussed in a Second Reading debate followed by a Committee stage, at which the arguments adduced on Second Reading can be challenged, if necessary by amendment. Therefore, it seems a great pity to limit the operation of the scrutiny of this House on two quite important measures in that way.
I appreciate that the Government's legislative programme may be in difficulties but, with great respect, is it justifiable to cut the proper scrutiny of those Bills in this way for that purpose?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may say from these Benches that we agreed to the request by the Government to do what was done in another place. That request received all-party agreement in order to speed the measures through the House. The measures are separate. The first, on non-domestic rating, is designed to bring much-needed relief to certain groups of businesses which benefit from provisions made in the Budget. The
1856
second Bill needs to pass through the House as quickly as possible because it gives certain protection as regards reinsurance. Therefore, although we are loath on this side of the House to agree to deny opportunities for debate, there are exceptions and we believe that these two Bills are such exceptions.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for confirming that this Motion was tabled with the agreement of the usual channels. He is correct that the reason why the Government believe that this is the right way in which to proceed is that both these Bills need to proceed quickly. They are non-contentious and have the support of all parties. They passed through another place extremely quickly.
An earlier enactment of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill will provide immediate relief for businesses from higher rates liabilities, thus helping them to recover from the recession. The Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill provides statutory backing which enables the Government to fulfil their commitment to act as a reinsurer of last resort in respect of damage caused by terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised an important point concerning the responsibilities of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I can best answer the noble Lord by saying that the effect of the Motion is to enable Standing Order 44 to be dispensed with to enable the Bill to be taken through all its stages on Tuesday. It does not require the House to take all stages on Tuesday. If the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, following its meeting on Monday, were to consider that a point of sufficient importance arose on the Bill to justify further consideration, it would be possible to arrange for a separate Committee stage after the Whitsun Recess. Moreover, it is possible for members of the committee to raise any general points on the legislation during the Second Reading debate. Therefore, we are not obliged to put the suspension into effect. We can still proceed in the normal way if it is thought better to do so after the committee has met on Monday.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, on Monday next, the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Part I in order to consider the amendment to insert a new Clause (Action short of dismissal: non-infringing actions) before Clause 13 and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken on the same day as Committee (on Re-commitment). —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister and the Leader of the House for acceding to the request, which they received and treated sympathetically, from my noble friend Lady Turner that the matter should be dealt with in this way. I should apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lady Turner who is not well. However, she has asked me to thank the two Ministers involved.
Although we have no objection to, and are party to, the Motion as it appears on the Order Paper, the Minister and the House should be aware that it is churlish in the extreme for the Government—not the Ministers affected—to treat the House in this way. The House is entitled to know that the amendment which will be before the House extends into three pages. It is a new clause which deals with an extremely important matter. At this very late stage the issue which the Government have decided the House must deal with concerns the denial of pay increases to employees who refuse to sign personal contracts which require them to relinquish trade union representation. An industrial tribunal decided that offering financial inducements in that way constituted action short of dismissal on grounds related to union membership or activities in breach of Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Those verdicts were overturned by majority decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal but the Court of Appeal ruled that the employers' action amounted to unlawful discrimination under Section 146 of the 1992 Act.
What troubles so many people is why the Government acted even before the judgment was available for study and why the Government announced on Report that they intended to bring forward this amendment in this way. The substance itself will be debated in the procedures that we have agreed. But it should be recognised that there are many people inside, and especially outside, the House who believe that the Government have acted with grave discourtesy and that it is a legislative outrage for the Government to act in this way.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I, too, am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has proposed that the House should resolve itself into a Committee next Monday to consider the Government's new clause rather than debating it as one of a number of amendments on Third Reading. I am sure that that is a wise decision. It means that there is now no need for us to engage in long and possibly acrimonious debate as to the procedure to be followed.
However, I must add that we consider it wholly wrong for the Government to introduce legislation to make a significant change in industrial relations law at the very last stage in the Bill's passage through the House, without any prior consultation with interested parties. We have also been concerned about the Government proposing to effect the change before it was known whether the recent Court of Appeal decisions in the cases involving Associated Newspapers and Associated British Ports were to go before your Lordships' Appellate Committee.
My understanding now is that the new clause will not affect either of those cases; nor, indeed, any others
1858
which may be awaiting hearing by an industrial tribunal. I should be most grateful if the noble Viscount would confirm that that is the case. Most importantly, we are strongly opposed to the substance of what is proposed in the government amendment. However, I shall reserve what I have to say until we come to debate the new clause next Monday.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I wish to echo the sentiments expressed concerning the procedure of rushing such an important amendment through the House. I ask the noble Viscount to reconsider his procedural Motion. I have participated in all stages of the Bill so far. I regret to say that its passage has been marked by a remarkable unwillingness on the part of the Government to listen and an even more remarkable unwillingness to answer any questions. That approach of the Government, taken by the noble Viscount, has created very considerable unease about the process to be adopted with respect to such a very important amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, pointed out, the amendment is complex and difficult. It will require very careful consideration and the Government will need to listen and think. Most especially, it surely requires that the Government should have time to consider the arguments raised in Committee between the Committee and Report stages. The Motion before the House would eliminate the chance of the Government to consider the arguments put forward in Committee before Report. I ask the noble Viscount, once again, to reconsider this procedural Motion.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should also like to echo the view put forward by my noble friend Lord Graham, the Opposition Chief Whip. Irrespective of the harmful effects this will have upon the parliamentary procedures and the proud position held by this House as a revising Chamber, it has been a feature of the Bill to have amendments tabled at a late stage without due consultation.
I have already made known my views concerning the special matters relating to Northern Ireland. But, with all sincerity, and while recognising the problems that confront business managers, I should like to point out that what is proposed will be harmful and may destroy the consultations and the trust that are chief elements of industrial relations, more so, perhaps, than the effects of the Bill itself. As regards the way that the legislation has been handled, I am not blaming Ministers in this House or the Opposition for trying to steer the Bill through. But, certainly, I am aware that it is having extremely harmful effects on the industrial relations procedures that exist in the United Kingdom.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I support the remarks made by my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Graham. As regards the first part of the Motion, it seems to me to be all right to recommit on Monday if there is a new and important clause to be discussed. But in the light of proposals regarding the reform of this Chamber, if it is our defence that the purpose of this Chamber is to

1859
carry out careful scrutiny and reconsideration of legislation, it behoves us to honour that commitment and to show that we do deliberate.
If we are recommitting this part of the Bill at such a late stage, a proper passage of time should be allowed between that stage and the Report stage. If we do not do so, and if we hurry the legislation through, then we are being false to the claim that this is a proper scrutinising Chamber.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for confirming the agreement of the Opposition to the course of action laid down by the Motion. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain briefly the purpose of the Motion. I believe that it will be helpful to your Lordships if the House reverts to Committee on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill to consider the amendment which the Government have tabled on Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which deals with action short of dismissal.
I gave notice of our intention to move the amendment at col. 860 of the Report stage of the Bill on 6th May. As I said at the time, the Government's purpose is to clarify the effect of the law in this area. The recent judgments of the Court of Appeal in two cases have confirmed that the law is giving rise to difficulties and confusion. The present position is unsatisfactory, and it is important that we should act quickly to make the law clear.
I have, as I undertook to do, placed copies of the relevant Court of Appeal judgments in the Library of the House. I have also tabled the amendment at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that we needed to consider the implications of the Court of Appeal judgments very carefully in framing the amendment. I recognise that, if we were to have dealt with the matter on Third Reading, that would have restricted the scope for debate. I agree that it is important for your Lordships to have the opportunity to debate the amendment thoroughly. That is why the Government have tabled the Motion.
Through the Motion, we are providing an opportunity for the House to consider the amendment in detail in Committee. We tabled the proposed new clause as soon as possible to allow time for any further amendments to be tabled. I must point out to the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Desai, that the rest of the Bill has received very thorough consideration by your Lordships. Therefore, in the circumstances, I think it reasonable for the House to proceed to Third Reading of the Bill on that day.
I am most grateful for the helpful and constructive approach which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, have adopted on the matter. I commend the Motion to the House.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with growing apprehension. I understand and support the reason why my noble friend Lord Graham agreed to the Motion. However, it seems to me that the choice he was given was
1860
between being hanged at the yard-arm and walking the plank. There is not much difference in personal comfort between the two.
Perhaps I may address myself to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I read the report of the very important and valuable debate initiated yesterday by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I noted with great interest, and some comfort, the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, at the conclusion. But here, surely, is an example—and only a day after those aspirations were uttered by the Government Front Bench—where, once again, we have instant government without time for adequate reflection.
I do not know what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has to say about this. I am sure he wishes to preserve the proper appreciation of legislation. I dare say he has been overruled in the Cabinet or in some other place but he really should take on board the fact that it is not much use having general debates on matters of principle, as occurred yesterday when the whole House united in condemning instant government, only for the Government to come forward the very next day with yet another illustration of instant government. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, will tell the Cabinet so. I am sure I speak not only for myself.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, had to say. When a noble Lord with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, makes such comments, the House listens very carefully, as I do. I do not seek to defend what is being done as being in the interests of best government. The Government found themselves in a difficult situation where there was a lack of clarity in the law. We had to weigh the uncertainty that that would create in many people's contractual arrangements with the difficulties the House of Lords has in dealing with this matter. We discussed it through the usual channels and I am extremely grateful that the noble Baroness from the Labour Party and the noble Lord from the Liberal Party agreed—I accept they did so reluctantly—that this is probably the best way to proceed. That is why the Government have proceeded in this way. However, I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Urban Development Bill 3.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 160A:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Appointment of managers
.—(1) Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (appointment of managers by the court) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 22 (Preliminary notice by tenant)—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words after "a notice" there shall be substituted "or notices under this section must (subject to subsection (3)) be served by the tenant. In the case of an application under section 24(2) (a) or (c), a notice conforming to the requirements of subsection (2A) of this section must be served upon the landlord of the premises. In the case of an application for a consent order under section 24(2) (b), a notice conforming to the requirements of subsection (3) of this section must be served upon each tenant, whether of a flat or of part or parts of the premises occupied or intended to be occupied otherwise than for residential purposes";

(b) in subsection (2), for "A notice" there shall be substituted "A notice served upon a landlord"; and

(c) after subsection (2) insert

"(2A) A notice to be served upon a tenant under this section must—

(a) specify the tenant's name, the address of his flat and an address in England and Wales (which may be the address of his flat) at which the landlord may serve notices, including notices in proceedings, on him in connection with this Part;

(b) state that the tenant intends to make an application for an order under section 24 to be made by the court in respect of premises to which this Part applies as are specified in the notice, and state the terms of any draft order that it is proposed to place before the court.

(c) contain such information (if any) as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe."

(3) In section 24(2) (appointment of manager by the court), after paragraph (a) insert
"(aa) whether or not the landlord is in breach of any obligations mentioned in paragraph (a), where the court is satisfied that consent to the making of this order in such terms as it thinks fit has been obtained from

(i) a majority of the tenants of flats in the premises, and

(ii) the tenant or tenants of any part or parts of the premises occupied or intended to be occupied for otherwise than residential purposes." ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, two main causes of dissatisfaction with the long leasehold system exist. One is the fact that leases are wasting assets—we have already discussed that in great detail —and the other concerns the problems associated with management. It is that latter that I intend to address in this amendment this afternoon.
As the Bill stands, many people will be unable to enfranchise. Lease extensions, which we were so pleased to welcome when the Minister granted them the other day—we have not yet seen the actually wording and we wait to see that on Third Reading —will be of great help to people. However, the problem of bad management is common. Some two-thirds of flat owners complain of it. It affects the state of the national housing stock as well as the interests of individual flat owners. Surely we must tackle this problem by giving those who cannot enfranchise the right to manage, and it would be wrong if this legislation does not do so.
The difficulty of enfranchising has now been compounded by the new residence qualification, and
1862
the rule that those supporting enfranchisement must constitute 50 per cent. of occupiers in a block. Those are just two of the major concessions recently made to the landlord interest in the course of the passage of the Bill. We have now reached a position where eight separate hurdles have to be leapt before flat owners can even reach the starting point on the way to freehold ownership. Then there are the practical obstacles of raising the necessary finance and coping with the complex procedures. Many blocks will be ineligible, and in others which are eligible costs and other factors will prevent the qualifying leaseholders from getting the required majority support for enfranchisement.
The new residence test is particularly significant, more so than has been allowed. In many blocks the problem will not just be the presence of company owned flats and second homes. Flats which have been repossessed or whose owners have rented them out in order to avoid repossession before having lived there for three years will find themselves in real difficulty in meeting the 50 per cent. residence qualification. The qualification proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, of one year or three years in 10 is a severe one as in the late 1980s many people bought flats intending to continue to live in them then found they could not afford to do so. Indeed they were encouraged by the Government to let them out as a way of coping with their negative equity problems. Those people now find themselves in an even more difficult and disadvantaged situation.
For all those reasons the Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee believes there will be many unenfranchised blocks and that in many of these bad management practices will continue unless there is some measure along the lines of this proposed amendment. Chapters V and VI of the Bill seek to improve the range of rights available to tenants in blocks under the control of landlords. However, in the view of the LRCC, that is to aim at the wrong target. The real need is to improve access to rights. Under the 1985 and 1987 Landlord and Tenant Acts flat owners' rights are already very impressive on paper. However, they fall down in practice. Government sponsored research has shown that in practice tenants are far too often unable to use their rights, mainly because of the high costs and the complexities of the court proceedings involved. That unfortunately will also be true of the new rights created by the Bill as drafted.
Tenants already have a right under the 1987 Act to take over the management of their own homes, but only where a landlord can be proved to be at fault. That may sound fair and reasonable but the court proceedings involved are so long and costly that in practice this is virtually a dead letter. One problem is that the procedure involved is cumbersome; another is that it must be proved that a landlord is currently in breach of a management obligation and is likely to continue to be so. If he persuades the court he is going to deal with the problem named by the tenants, their case falls to the ground and has to be started all over again if he fails to honour the commitments he has

1863
given. Above all, the fact that a landlord has a bad management record is not a ground on which the court can make an order.
Westminster City Council has in many instances had to intervene on behalf of tenants because landlords have collected money from tenants but failed entirely to carry out the repairs or upgrading they promised. It is only when they are threatened with a compulsory purchase order or court action that they appear willing to carry out the work. As soon as the threat has receded, they once again fail to carry out the work. In the end, Westminster City Council had to compulsorily purchase a number of blocks which it then passed on to housing associations for the latter to act as landlords as the council wished to see the tenants protected.
I am not really speaking here about good landlords. No tenant would wish to change a good landlord or a good managing agent. Nevertheless, I think there is great cause for concern that many people are dissatisfied and feel that the service charges they pay are not properly accounted for. I realise service charge accounts are meant to be submitted to tenants. However, last week I met a man who was a statutory tenant in a block. He told me that when he went to a rent review tribunal the accounts that were produced for the block he lives in were completely different from the figures that were produced for tenants who pay the service charges. There is a large discrepancy that no one ever accounts for.
At the very least the amendment would give access to the right to manage and would make that much more practicable. The LRCC believes that the best approach is to give a right to manage without the necessity and legal expense of proof of fault, dependent only on proof that the tenants in the building consent to such an order. The landlord also must consent. This is simply a matter of common sense. It will be an obvious anomaly for the law to give flat owners the ability to take over both ownership and control of properties without proof of fault, as is now proposed in the Bill, and yet to insist that where the lesser objective of control without ownership is sought, then fault must be proved. As I explained before, that is difficult to prove.
Under the regime created by the amendment, the required majority of residential tenants, together with any non-residential tenants, will approve the proposal to take control of the management. They will go to court to seek an order. Because the proceedings will be consent proceedings involving no legal contest between landlord and tenants, the problems associated with the use of courts under Part II of the 1972 Act as currently enacted will not arise.
The amendment does not propose that landlords be deprived of the power to manage, merely that that power may be taken away from them. Landlords would also have the right to apply to the court for protection or to seek revocation or amendment of any order made.
Good landlords have nothing to fear because tenants would want to leave them in control. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in
1864
particular to the fact that there is no question of tenants seeking windfall profits. I know that the noble Lord was concerned about that possibility in relation to ownership. No profits would be involved in taking over management or appointing new managing agents. It would simply be a case of improving the management.
It may also be argued that, in buying leases which give control of management to landlords, flat owners are only getting what they contracted for. That is true, if the landlords fulfil their obligations. Leases of flats involve management obligations rather than rights. Where those obligations are not met it is the landlords, not the tenants, who are flouting the rights of property and the sanctity of contract. Properly speaking, landlords do not have rights; they have obligations. However, it should be noted that under normal residential leases landlords are not allowed to make a profit out of management. They are meant to charge the tenants for the management functions which they carry out but that should not be on a profit-making basis. Nevertheless, many landlords abuse the system and make profits from service charges and other management fees.
The fact that the right to manage is consistent with the freedom of contract and the principles of property ownership is no doubt one reason why the chief executive of the Grosvenor Estates proposed in a recent letter to The Times that that right should be given to flat owners and why at an earlier stage my noble friend Lord Boardman brought forward Amendment No. 160 relating to the right to manage. My noble friend has since withdrawn that amendment. I considered re-tabling the amendment but thought that it would not be right to do so since he must have thought that it was defective or he would not have withdrawn it. My amendment is slightly different and, I believe, rather better.
Amendment No. 160A is limited in scope. Because of the late stage in the Bill's proceedings the amendment has been framed to achieve the objective with the minimum of new legislative provision. Conferring the right to manage exclusively by provisions within the current Bill would require numerous consequential amendments. This amendment seeks to achieve its objective through a relatively minor change in the 1987 Act, using the procedural mechanism created in that Act by simply adding a consent order procedure to the existing proof of fault procedure.
It would be for the court to make the necessary arrangements to protect the landlord from having any liability where he does not have control, just as it currently has that role where it takes over management on proof of fault. The amendment will not leave the court in day-to-day control of the management of a block of flats. That would be impractical and it was not the intention of the 1987 Act. The court puts a nominee and a manager in control of the management. In practice, the tenants would usually set up a management company. If that is satisfactory, that company would be appointed as manager by the court. That happened under the 1987 Act in the recent case of Howard v Midrome Limited.

1865
The management company would then take over full responsibility for the management, leaving the landlord without liability.
I believe that the amendment protects the rights of all involved. Under the right to manage created by the amendment, anyone, including the landlord, would enjoy the protection of being able to go to court to seek a revocation or amendment of the order on the ground that it was not working or that it was working in a way which was prejudicial to their interests. Again, I point out to the House that I am sure bad landlords will not seek revocation if that happens. Good landlords may do so because they may consider that the arrangement is not working.
Amendment No. 160A differs from Amendment No. 160B. I should like to mention the differences and say why I prefer my amendment and do not support Amendment No. 160B. Amendment No. 160A covers commercial tenants as well as residential tenants. I do not believe that Amendment No. 160B does so. Local authority tenants are covered under Amendment No. 160B. My own experience of the field of local authority housing leads me to consider that the provision is less appropriate for that sector. Under my amendment, commercial tenants are recognised and will be protected because the amendment demands that all commercial tenants agree to a consent order before it can be made. That provides very good protection. It is also appropriate because there may be a large commercial presence in some properties and the commercial tenants would have an interest in the matter.
I commend the amendment to your Lordships. The very fact that the Grosvenor Estates supports the concept is interesting, because I believe that it takes its obligations as a landlord seriously. That support must indicate that there is good in the amendment. I also believe that your Lordships will appreciate the common sense, sound value and simplicity of the amendment. I hope that your Lordships will support Amendment No. 160A. I do not support Amendment No. 160B, and I shall not speak to Amendment No. 237A, which is grouped with those amendments, because I have not had time to study its implications. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I too shall speak to Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B and I shall not speak to Amendment No. 237A, partly because I have not had time to study it and partly because the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is perfectly capable of making out his own case.
I follow the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, a long way. I do not intend to reiterate her arguments. In the course of its passage through your Lordships' House, the Bill has changed in certain respects, particularly in connection with the residency test and lease renewal. The consequence will be that enfranchisement will inevitably be less than it would have been had the Bill gone through as originally drafted. I believe that that is agreed on all sides by all rational men and women. On the other hand, there is a residual problem, which the noble
1866
Baroness quite rightly raised—namely, that there is therefore all the more reason for tenants to have greater influence on the management of the properties in which they live and of which they are leaseholders and in which they hold an interest. Indeed, at one stage of the passage of the Bill it was considered that there would be a package comprising a residency test, lease renewal and management of estates.
I follow the noble Baroness that far. However, where I differ from the noble Baroness is on the part of her amendment which alludes to the court. I believe that the existing arrangements, as she rightly said, are unsatisfactory. But I believe that the arrangements in her amendment would hardly be more satisfactory. I also do not follow her logic when she states that council tenants or local authority tenants should not enjoy the same rights and privileges as private sector tenants.
I do not wish to go over the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, put to the Committee to justify the amendment which he moved, again very eloquently. Further, I wish to draw a distinction between what we propose in Amendment No. 160B and Amendment No. 213A, which specifically addresses the issue in Part II of the Bill.
In Amendment No. 160B I seek to establish the logic of the argument which we have been pursuing at all stages of the Bill. The logic is that if tenants can enfranchise, they will be in charge of the management of their properties. If for one reason or another they cannot enfranchise, they will have the right to renew their lease. If they have the right to renew their lease, subject to all the tests which they have to go through, then those who are still leaseholders of a freeholder should have the right to influence at least the management of the properties in which they live and which are their homes.
The logic goes further than just private leaseholders. It applies to leaseholders or tenants of any landlord, be he or she public or private. That is the logic of Amendment No. 160B. That is why I much prefer Amendment No. 160B to Amendment No. 160A.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships because I do not believe that at Report stage we should go over all the arguments that we have been through in Committee. I simply put forward Amendment No. 160B from these Benches as an amendment which we believe to be important, substantial and in the logic of the Bill as drafted. I would have much preferred the noble Baroness to have reserved her amendment for a later stage. At present I strongly prefer Amendment No. 160B and cannot support the noble Baroness on Amendment No. 160A. However, if the House decides against what I propose in Amendment No. 160B, the noble Baroness may reconsider the position at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, will wish to speak on the matter. In Committee he spoke eloquently to an amendment approximately on the same lines excluding public sector tenants. It came as some surprise that he withdrew the amendment when it had already been tabled for Report.

1867
In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will accept Amendment No. 160B because it covers all the areas to which I have referred. It provides a way of public or private tenants being in some measure in charge of the management of their homes. The noble Lord may say that the amendment may be defective; I do not know. No doubt he will be able to clear up the defects at Third Reading if your Lordships accept the basic provision. I put forward an important principle: that people who are leaseholders who do not own the freehold, whether public or private, should have the right to say who manages their homes. That is the burden of Amendment No. 160B. That is what I wish to speak to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word in opposition to both Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B. In doing so, perhaps I may declare my interest as someone who, with others, has the right to buy, does not propose to exercise it and would wish to be able to participate in the management of the block, whether as part of a package or not.
My reasons—as part of the declaration of interest in not wishing to exercise the right to buy—are that under the common leases the provision of the services are at audited cost; the landlord is an honourable man; the managing agents appointed are of repute and charge a percentage of the management services, cost of repairs and so on; and that I am wholly content and would not wish to move from my home or take a quick turn at the expense of the landlord.
Listening to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I would say with utmost respect to her that good landlords have a great deal to fear from enfranchisement and from the split administration which arises as a consequence of enfranchisement. As my noble friend spoke, she opened up for me, as a lawyer, a somewhat terrifying vista of endless and expensive legislation, the setting up of management companies, and so on and so forth, which more often than not rather than resolve differences between neighbours can even accentuate them.
I understand that Amendment No. 160 is a Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee amendment. In this context again I say that I speak for no one but myself. My objection to the amendment is that it conflicts with the residence condition accepted on Amendment No. 14 at Committee stage, with consequent amendments on Report, and no doubt will also conflict with the government amendment to reflect in some degree Amendments Nos. 29 to 30A moved by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Amendment No. 160B seems to have arisen as a phoenix from the ashes of Amendment No. 160. I would indeed have supported in principle Amendment No. 160, as I believe I said at the time of speaking to Amendment No. 14 at Committee stage. With regard to Amendment No. 160B, my objections are essentially twofold, while accepting that some
1868
requisite means of participation must be provided for tenants who decline to exercise the right to buy. The two reasons are these.
First, I do not understand why groups of houses in public sector estates, as defined in subsection (5), should be included in subsections (2) (b) and (3) (b), or why it is appropriate to do so. Secondly, it is not understood or considered that management is sufficiently defined to include all aspects of the administration of the block. But, as to the requisite means of participation which lie behind the debate on Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B, Amendment No. 160 had it been moved or any other similar amendment, certain questions arise on which, if the Minister is able to give some measure of assurance, I should indeed be most grateful.
First, would the management, as proposed by the Government, include the right to disturb services rendered at cost under common leases, to alter the cost of provision, or even to discontinue the provision of such services as regards the tenants who decline to enfranchise? On 18th May, at col. 1718 of Hansard, my noble friend the Minister said, in the context of service charges:
"One of the objectives of [the scheme] is to release tenants from that regime".
That regime should not be perpetuated in an estate management scheme. To what extent can the management committee, set up by those who exercise the right to buy, enforce amendment of the provisions of the common form lease upon those who do not wish to exercise that right? I know that I am a lawyer and I should know the answer, but I do not.
What is the position as regards the repairing company, or the exercise, for example, of an option to purchase a caretaker's flat, or an agreed reduction in service charges under the common leases when a statutory tenant in the block falls ill? What is the position as regards the mutual covenants scheduled to the lease?
Those who wish to participate in an estate management scheme, not having enfranchised, seek clarification as to whether and, if so, to what extent the management committee may, contrary, for example, to my wishes, disturb the contractual relationship under the common form lease which exists between myself and my landlord? I seek clarification and a measure of reassurance respectfully. I wish I knew the answer. For the reasons I have given, despite what lies behind the amendments, I am unable to agree with either of them. Nevertheless, I should have supported Amendment No. 160.
Lord Monson: My Lords, superficially there is some attraction in both amendments. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I accept entirely that there would be no question of windfall profits accruing to anyone if either of the amendments were to be accepted.
The problem is that in so far as the amendments would deal with bad landlords, they are to be welcomed. However, in certain circumstances, they could also unfairly make life difficult for highly respected, good landlords such as Smith's Charity and other landlords of high repute.

1869
The chief circumstances that come to mind are these. There are periods of high inflation such as we saw to a large degree in the early 1970s, to a lesser degree in the late 1970s and for a small period in the early 1980s. At such times, especially for those who exist on a fixed income, it is a normal human reaction to resent all price increases of any kind, including increases in management charges, even if the increases do no more than keep pace with the rapidly rising cost of living. That could lead to resentful tenants voting to kick out perfectly good landlords from their management function in the mistaken belief that the management fee increases were unjustified. That could arise even though the increases happened to be no more than level-pegging with or below the retail prices index.
For that reason, while the broad thrust of the amendments is probably to be welcomed, the threshold at which the landlord could be removed from his existing management functions under Amendment No. 160B would appear to be 50.001 per cent. That is to say, anything over half of the tenants. However, that is too low. The figure ought to be somewhere between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. If the amendment were to be brought back on Third Reading with that change incorporated, I should support it. However, as it stands, I do not believe that I can.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, both my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the amendment which I moved earlier in Committee. As I made clear at the time, Amendment No. 5 was part of a group of amendments which hung together. The management's right to protect the lease and there being no right for non-residents to enfranchise were all part of a package. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord strenuously opposed my Amendment No. 5, knowing that with it hung Amendment No. 160 which, as a consequence, I withdrew. I do not accept my noble friend's criticism for withdrawing an amendment which I made clear at the outset was part of Amendment No. 5 which she forcefully opposed.
Perhaps I may return to my noble friend's speech in moving the amendment. She made three points on which I wish to join issue with her. First, she said that purchasers must be occupiers of 50 per cent. of the block. She will find that recorded in Hansard. With great respect, she has not followed the Bill nor the effect of Amendment No. 14 which I moved and which was accepted; indeed, it was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. She was quite impressed with that. Therefore, the whole of her argument is, I believe, based on a fallacy.
My noble friend then said something and I hope that she will forgive me quoting it. If she wishes to correct me I shall happily give way. I believe that it was an unfortunate remark. She said that we should not be concerned with management rights but with management obligations. Managements, she said,
"do not have rights; they have obligations".
I do not know whether my noble friend really meant that. If she did, I shall certainly give way to her.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, by leave of the House, yes. We were talking about contracts and leases. If one studies the lease of any flat, one sees that it places obligations upon the landlord. He has obligations to maintain the block and to see that it is maintained. That is what I meant about the obligations. It is not a pleasure in the sense that, "I have the right to look after the block", or "not to look after the block". It is an obligation on the landlord which the good landlord always carries out adequately and which the bad landlord fails to carry out. But it is a contractual obligation under a lease.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. In my book, each side to a contract has rights and obligations. It is not a one-sided bargain, as perhaps my noble friend has suggested on this and a number of other amendments. I find her amendment defective. It is based on the wrong premise and perhaps does not follow the complexities of what has been approved in my Amendment No. 14. Perhaps it is through having a different approach to obligations and rights. I oppose her amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 160B, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, perhaps I can claim part copyright because large sections of it come from my Amendment No. 160. Unfortunately that amendment was withdrawn, not simply because Amendment No. 5 was lost, but also because I had received advice that it was entirely defective and would be unacceptable. In so far as he has taken from me the copyright of the preface to my amendment, I have to say to him with regret that I am advised that the amendment is defective. No doubt my noble friend will be able to say whether nor not that is so. Certainly it was not drafted with the object of extending, as the noble Lord has, into the public sector. I understand his argument. But I would find that the amendment, in so far as it copied my Amendment No. 160, was probably wrong. As it extends into the public sector, I think it inappropriate. However, my noble friend may have more to say on the matter.
I have not studied the other amendment, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which is grouped with this one. As it has not been amended, I shall make no comment on it. I certainly oppose Amendments Nos. 160A and 160B.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Carnock: My Lords, I support the general thrust of these amendments. In coming to that decision I am very much influenced by the fact that in nearly every case the financial interest of the tenants in a block of flats is very much greater than that of the landlords. Indeed, the reverse only occurs when leases have only a few years to run before expiry.
Both of the amendments appear to me to suffer from some defect. I shall illustrate the point that worries me by asking noble Lords to consider a block containing 100 flats and 20 offices or shops. Under Amendment No. 160A at least 51 residential flat owners would have to agree before a management order could be obtained—and also, all 20 of the non-residential owners. That would be so even if one

1871
were to disagree. Therefore, a situation could arise whereby 18 or 19 of the commercial owners would want a manager appointed, but there would be one dissentient so the management application would be blocked.
In the case of Amendment No. 160B, commercial owners are omitted entirely. In that eventuality, to take the block which I have suggested for consideration, one would find that a majority—not even a majority, only 50 per cent. —of the flat owners in the block would be able to secure a management order, and the wishes of the commercial owners would be entirely neglected.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for making so clear the issue to be addressed. It is indeed, as she puts it, management obligations. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, in saying that this is a position where the rights of the management or manager, however one wishes to describe him, need to be balanced with his obligations. In any agreement both sides have rights and obligations, and those are to be recognised. As the noble Baroness described, a lease has a benefit for the landlord in the rent that he is paid, and he has obligations to maintain the property. It is a simple quid pro quo; one which often expresses itself in about 65 pages of lease. The noble Baroness is quite right in drawing our attention to the fact that this is at the heart of her amendment; and, indeed, at the heart of Amendment No. 160B. It is the objective of both those amendments to ensure that if there is a failure to comply with the obligations—after all, in the real world when things are going well no tenant will want to create the complex situation of applying the provisions of either of these clauses but would simply prefer to get on with a quiet life and let the landlord undertake the management—and things go wrong, then it is entirely right that the tenants, both those described in Amendment No. 160A and the more extensive group of tenants in Amendment No. 160B, should have the right to take action to protect their own positions.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, these amendments seek, in different ways, to give tenants a right to manage their homes. We have heard a number of speeches explaining how many of the problems in the running of blocks might be overcome if the tenants had the right to take control of the management, and certainly it is a seductive idea. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said it was superficially attractive. After all, the tenants meet the cost of the management through their service charges so, the argument goes, it is only right that they should control how that money is spent. I believe, however, that there are some fundamental difficulties which noble Lords may not have sufficiently addressed in looking at these amendments. I fear that the Government cannot go along with what is proposed. and I shall explain why.
First, I believe that giving tenants the right to take management responsibility from private landlords is unfair to landlords. Many of them manage their blocks themselves and there is no reason to suggest
1872
that, by and large, their standards of management are lower than those of, say, a reputable managing agent. It is their livelihood, yet these proposals would take away their business. Now, of course, enfranchisement is equally likely to result in a change of management in these circumstances. But in that case the landlord does receive back the value of his investment. Allowing the tenants to take away management responsibilities without also taking on ownership of the block is equivalent to taking away a business but keeping the former owner's capital invested in it. That is hardly fair. Equally, I am not sure that the proposals would actually provide an effective basis for the management of residential accommodation.
I take first the proposal from my noble friend Lady Gardner. That is based on the existing regime in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which allows the court to appoint a manager if it is satisfied that the landlord is in breach of his obligations under the lease and that the breach is likely to continue. The amendment would give tenants the right to apply to the court for the appointment of a manager, whether or not the landlord is in breach of his obligations. So it considerably widens the scope of the 1987 Act.
But that approach does not provide a sensible and sustainable way to manage blocks. It is one thing to allow a court to step in and appoint a manager where the landlord is in default, but it is quite another to do so when the management arrangements are working in a perfectly satisfactory way.
Taking management responsibilities from the landlord and giving them to the appointed manager is not always a very happy recipe. It is hardly a flexible way of dealing with day to day management if, every time there is some disagreement between the landlord and the manager about what action the manager should take, there has to be an application to the court for direction.
The fundamental difficulty is that while the manager may be appointed by the court he is nevertheless answerable to the landlord. The amendment does not give the tenants a right to manage, only a means of ensuring that a manager appointed by the court is in place. Where the landlord has not defaulted or failed in his obligations it would be fundamentally unsatisfactory for the courts to appoint a manager who will then be responsible to the landlord, even where there is a majority of the tenants in favour. It may be tolerable in the case where the alternative is a landlord who defaults on his obligations through apathy, but it is not an acceptable alternative in other cases. Therefore, I have very great difficulties with my noble friend's amendment.
I turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The amendment adopts a different approach. under which tenants acting collectively can appoint a management, presumably to act for them. Again, I think there is a fundamental difficulty here. The noble Lord sought to establish a logic. I fear he failed to do so. I ask him some simple questions. To whom is the manager answerable? Does he take his orders from the landlord, of from the tenants? If it is from the tenants, what rights and responsibilities does the landlord have? Is he effectively dispossessed of his

1873
property? If the manager takes his orders from the tenants, who gives them? Is it each tenant individually? Is it different groups of tenants? It is not at all satisfactory to say that the leasehold valuation tribunal will sort out the details in each case—they cannot re-write every lease in the country. That is not a drafting point, it is a fundamental flaw.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I shall have to interrupt the noble Lord. No doubt he realises that we are at Report stage. We have grouped together a series of amendments. I have spoken to that group. Therefore, I am unable to respond to his questions. However silly they may be, I am unable to respond to them.
Lord Strathclyde: Of course, my Lords. But the noble Lord may wish to counter those points when he decides whether or not to move his amendment. The noble Lord's amendment deals not only with blocks of flats but goes on to give any tenant of a public sector estate "a right to manage". Those proposals are unnecessary.
The Bill already provides in Clause 120 new arrangements under which properly constituted tenant management organisations shall have the right to take over from their local authority landlord management responsibilities. That clause sets out proper arrangements under which the Secretary of State may make regulations dealing, among other matters, with the administrative support and training of the tenant management organisation, feasibility studies, balloting, and for settling all the matters to be considered.
Before I explain the very real problems that I have with the amendment, perhaps I may turn to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway who made a somewhat complicated speech, which I do not pretend to have followed in its entirety. Perhaps I may write to him with the detailed answers. However, the point is that the tenants will have to pay the cost of maintaining their own blocks through charges imposed by the nominee purchaser. Non-participants would have exactly the same rights and obligations under their leases as they had before enfranchisement. The lease itself remains unchanged.
I believe that both the amendments are wrong in principle. Moreover, both leave a great many issues unanswered and would therefore be extremely difficult to put into practice. Any tenants who were to venture down the new avenues offered by these amendments would soon find themselves surrounded in a fog of ill-defined responsibilities with no firm structures in place to guide them.
These amendments offer only illusory rights. The detailed and well-defined procedures that we have offered for enfranchisement and for tenant management organisations offer a far better approach. I hope therefore that my noble friend Lady Gardner is satisfied with my explanation. I hope that she is able to withdraw her amendment arid that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not move his amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am most grateful to various Members of the House who have
1874
spoken on this matter. I must reply to a few of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, examined many points going beyond those directly concerned with the lease. I am glad that the Minister will reply to him.
I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to the Australian shorthold situation which works very well. There is always a management company which owns the block and each person has a share in it. It is decided by a majority of those people themselves, some of whom are actively interested and some of whom do not attend a single meeting, whether or not they want to spend money on a luxurious entrance. The arrangement is not a haphazard matter. I take note of the noble Lord's comments about the 60-plus per cent. of tenants. That is very interesting. I might be able to pursue it at a later stage with my noble friend the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, and I are, I believe, at cross purposes. We both understand leases perfectly well and the fact that on each side there are rights and obligations. The tenant's main obligation is to pay rent and to abide by the landlord's covenants, which usually include interior decorating, not disturbing other people in the block, and so on. But the tenant's right is to enjoy the flat and the occupancy thereof without disturbance and to rely on the landlord to do what he has covenanted to do, which usually includes maintaining the building, cleaning, insuring, and, of course, the tenant has to pay a proportion for that. The noble Lord said that I had said 50 per cent. of the purchases. If I said that, that is not what I meant. I meant 50 per cent. of the residents. That is the phrase that I should have used in my amendment.
But that is neither here nor there. I intend to take up the other points made by the Minister. He made a very interesting case. I accept what he said: that the landlord has the right to manage the block and it is his business. Provided that he is doing it well, I have no fault to find. Having listened to the Minister's reply, I feel that probably the real problem with the 1987 Act, to which my amendment relates, concerns the two passages about "currently in breach" and "likely to continue the breach" of the obligation to manage the property adequately. That is why tenants are so dissatisfied at the moment. They fail in any attempt to get rid of a bad landlord and have the court appoint managing agents to take over because of those two difficulties: the "currently" and "continuing" to do so. The really bad and completely evasive landlord has means of avoiding the word "currently" by hurriedly doing whatever is complained about; and at present the law does not take into account any past history of how many years of failure to do what needs doing has gone on.
I believe that there is a different way in which we could bring an amendment forward. It would cover the situation in the same way by applying to the court and proving the fault but the fault would not have to be proved on such a restricted basis as at present. At the moment it is almost impossible for tenants to succeed, no matter how bad the landlord may be. I have cited cases in which a council has tried to protect

1875
tenants and found it extremely frustrating in that nothing works with a really slippery landlord. With the good landlord, I do not believe that anyone will attempt to change the situation. People will be perfectly happy.
I have been persuaded by my noble friend not to press my amendment at this stage. But I shall have discussions with him before Third Reading. I believe that there is a point which could be brought forward which would be acceptable to both tenants and landlords and we should try to find it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 160B:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Tenants' right to manage
.—(1) This section shall confer upon tenants to whom subsection (2) below applies the right to appoint a manager to carry out such functions in connection with the management of those premises as the leasehold valuation tribunal shall order.
(2) This section applies—

(a) to the tenant of any flat within premises if—

(i) they consist of a self-contained building or part of a building and the freehold of the whole building or of that part of the building is owned by the same person;

(ii) they contain two or more flats;

(iii) not less than two-thirds of the flats contained in the premises are held by tenants under a long lease, and

(b) to any tenant of a public sector estate.

(3) The right to appoint a manager under this section shall only be exercisable where written notice of appointment is given—

(a) in the case of premises with tenants falling within subsection (2) (a) above, to the landlord responsible for managing the premises and to the freeholder if not the same person by not less than half of the tenants of flats in those premises and not less than half of the tenants giving such notice satisfy the residence condition set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section (Qualifying tenants satisfying residence condition); and

(b) in the case of a public sector estate, to the public sector landlord by not less than half of the tenants of houses on that estate, each of whom is either a secure tenant or a qualifying tenant as defined in section 5.

(4) Upon application by a manager appointed in accordance with subsection (3) the leasehold valuation tribunal shall make an order providing for—

(a) the manager to assume responsibility for the performance of such of the obligations of the landlord as may be determined by the leasehold valuation tribunal;

(b) for the manager to indemnify the landlord against any claim for non-performance of those obligations; and

(c) such other matters relating to the exercise by the manager of his functions and such matters as are incidental or ancillary thereto as the leasehold valuation tribunal thinks fit.

(5) In this section—

"long lease" has the meaning given in section (Meaning of "long lease");

"self contained building or part of a building" shall be construed in accordance with section 3(2);

"a public sector estate" means a group of houses of which the freehold is owned by the same public sector landlord, and which are agreed by the landlord and the tenants of at least two thirds of the houses in the
1876
group, or where no such agreement is capable of being reached, determined by the leasehold valuation tribunal, to constitute a public sector estate;

"house" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Housing Act 1985;

"management" of any premises includes repair, maintenance and insurance of those premises.

(6) In making a determination of under this section, a leasehold valuation tribunal may have regard to such matters as it thinks fit.
(7) The right conferred by this section shall have effect notwithstanding any order made under section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 providing for the exercise of any management functions to be defined activity for the purposes of Part I of that Act (compulsory competitive tendering.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. It offers a different approach from that of the noble Baroness. I recognise that. The fact that the amendments were grouped together was perhaps slightly misleading. However, this raises a very important point of principle and I wish to test the opinion of the House on the matter. I beg to move.
4.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 160B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 144.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Listowel, E.

Attlee, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell. L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington. L.

Ogmore, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Richard, L.

Grimond, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rochester, L.

Hanworth, V.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Healey, L.

Serota, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

1877

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Kintore, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kitchener, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Amwell, L.

Layton, L.

Annaly, L.

Leigh, L.

Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.

Liverpool, E.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas, L.

Astor, V.

LyeII, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lytton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Barber, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boardman, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon.of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Moyne, L.

Brightman, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Cadman, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Caithness, E.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Carnock, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Pender, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Porritt, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pym, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Rankeillour, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V..

Rees-Mogg, L.

Cranborne, V.

Rennell, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Davidson, V.

Romney, E.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Seccombe, B.

Downshire, M.

Selborne, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Shannon, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stedman, B.

Faithfull, B.

Strafford, E.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Finsberg, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Flather, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

[Teller.]

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Tenby, V.

Goschen, V.

Terrington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Torrington, V.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood; V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wolfson, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kindersley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 160C:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Preservation of external condition
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, subject to subsection (2), after consultation with such conservation societies as may be deemed by him to be appropriate, by order direct those persons who have exercised the right to enfranchise their flats, or any person or body set up to manage a block of flats, to preserve and conserve the external decorative treatment and structural condition of such block of flats in conformity with that of other properties in the terrace, crescent, street, square or circus in which such block is situated in compliance with the provisions of such direction.
(2) No direction may be given under subsection (1) above unless an opportunity has been afforded to all interested parties to make representations to the Secretary of State and due account has been taken of such representations.)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 160C is concerned with the preservation of the external condition of houses in which there has been total or partial enfranchisement of the flats held on long leases. At present, and indeed as has been the case for some time—one is tempted to say all but centuries —this important matter of preservation lies within the remit of those landlords who discharge their functions in that regard with diligence and conspicuous success.
The amendment is also concerned with the question of enforcement; that is, the means to the end of such preservation under the new regime proposed by the Bill. The whole object of tabling the amendment was to afford an opportunity for further discussion on a matter of some importance and of common concern. Again, I declare an interest as a long leaseholder who lives in a flat in a square to which the amendment would apply.
In a way this subject claimed the attention of your Lordships' House last Tuesday. In this context, at cols. 1714-5 my noble friend the Minister said that he would give consideration as to whether the leasehold valuation tribunals should have power to transfer rights and powers to English Heritage and local planning authorities in conservation areas, who would be obliged to consult with all persons interested. My noble friend then dealt with certain reservations, and no doubt at Third Reading some amendment will be brought forward.
Frankly, the Bill as it stands is defective in any event. There are no measures of safeguard in this respect provided in the Bill. If there be an end upon which we can all agree, so be it. The means of enforcement then must be truly effective to preserve and conserve the external decorative treatment and the structural condition of the houses in which the flats have been let on long leases so that conformity with other properties in the immediate vicinity of a conservation area may be preserved. This is not only in London. It is all over the country; notably Bath, for one example, and Cheltenham, for another example. One could go on. This is not a London affair. It is a national affair.
These are external facades of, to my way of thinking, great beauty and at all events of great architectural interest. They are for the enjoyment of all. They are a tribute to our heritage. Effective

1879
enforcement will now be wholly requisite as we will have no landlord to take the appropriate action to preserve them. We must envisage, must we not, a split administration between those who have exercised the right to buy and those who for some reason have declined to exercise that right? I say with respect to my noble friend the Minister—I always address him with respect—that I entertain some real reservations as to whether a transfer of power by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to English Heritage and the local planning authority would in practice truly afford effective means of enforcement once the landlords have gone. It is a very cumbersome approach.
I take the view that, after all, it is the Minister who has introduced this new regime and it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the Minister should bear the responsibility for ensuring that the implementation of his new regime should not have most unwelcome consequences in this context. Though it may be irksome for a Department of State to assume such responsibility, none the less your Lordships may think that it is requisite that it should. It is not the intention to seek to pre-empt such government amendment as may be introduced, but I have not seen a draft of it and I do not know whether a draft already exists. Your Lordships may take the view that the buck on enforcement, as a matter of principle, stops with the Minister and that therefore the principle of the amendment is appropriate. I shall of course attend to your Lordships' contributions to this debate with deference and care in the hope that this amendment may commend itself in principle. No doubt it is technically defective because I drafted it myself. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to support the new clause moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. As he has pointed out, some of our residential squares in various towns and cities are indeed a credit to this country. One of the most powerful arguments against the leasehold enfranchisement of the buildings in those squares is that it will cause trouble, disappointment and environmental damage. This is a very difficult problem to deal with. I am not saying that my noble friend's new clause will enable that problem to be solved entirely but it will make a valuable contribution towards doing so. I really do think that if Parliament is legislating in this far-reaching manner with regard to leasehold enfranchisement we really ought not in the times in which we live to ignore the environmental effects. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is to be congratulated on having put forward a constructive proposition which will help to deal with the problem —not entirely but to some extent.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord's amendment. The only thing I am surprised at is that he has not included houses in single occupation. It is my experience that this is where most of the problems lie. Perhaps he will explain that when he comes to reply.
1880
I have the good fortune to live in a conservation area on the Grosvenor Estate. It is a matter of great concern that the standards which the estate itself has managed to preserve over a great many years should be allowed to slip. It is a natural characteristic of individualism that people like to paint their houses and flats different colours. I know one house which is in a row of houses designed by Cubitt which have to be painted in cream, with preferably black railings and the same colour doors. It had mock beams put on to it and mullioned windows to give it a sort of Tudor look, which of course is quite unsuitable. I know other houses where the railings have been painted bright cobalt blue. I am not in any way trying to criticise the colour of the party opposite but, architecturally, it is quite unsuitable in that type of setting. I hope that the Bill, which I have always supported and which I commend the Government for introducing, will curtail the excessive individualism of householders who may think that they want to have a house that is more suitable for Capri or the South of France than London in a district which has architecture following the Palladian tradition. Therefore, I commend the amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I sympathise with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Campbell and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. However, having read the amendment, I am not sure that in my lifetime I have seen any impediment to the way people enjoy their property of as dirigiste a nature as this one.
Lord Rix: My Lords, much to my surprise I found myself speaking for Amendment No. 174A. However, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I happen to have lived off private roads for the past 18 years. I was chairman of the road committee for 10 years. I found it extremely difficult to get individuals to agree to a consensus when it came to the upkeep of the roads and the sidewalks of the roads. I can see that this would well apply to the frontage of flats and squares of this nature. Therefore, I should like to support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I always welcome it when a noble Lord seeks to give the Executive very extensive new powers. But in this case I fear that my noble friend Lord Campbell has proposed powers which are far too extensive and which are totally unnecessary given the very extensive provisions already included in the Bill which we discussed at some length on Tuesday afternoon. I am sorry that my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon could not join us then.
As the House knows, Chapter IV of the Bill already provides for estate management schemes which can be used to maintain adequate standards of appearance and the amenity of an area. These provide the necessary mechanism for protecting the appearance of leasehold estates after enfranchisement. We have also given additional powers to English Heritage and local planning authorities to promote such schemes in

1881
conservation areas where the landlord fails to do so. I have promised to come forward with amendments at Third Reading which will further improve these arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway suggested that it should be the responsibility of the department. Even if that were to be the case, ultimately the department would be advised by English Heritage. Although I therefore share entirely the concerns of my noble friend and others who have supported him, I believe that we have already provided a mechanism for dealing with them and I hope that, on that basis, he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am looking at Chapter IV and am trying to find to what extent those who will have responsibility under the few clauses of that chapter will be required to preserve the environmental quality of the buildings concerned. Perhaps that will be done under the amendment that my noble friend will move on Third Reading, but perhaps he will explain the point because this is the crux of the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in support of the Minister. We have had an extensive discussion. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would like to read Tuesday's debate, he will find extensive provisions for ensuring what he wants and extensive assurances from the Minister that in conservation areas local authorities and planning authorities will be the subject of amendments to be brought forward by the Government to our satisfaction on Third Reading. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, we should get on with the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I do not much relish being told by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, even with a smile on his face, to get on with the Bill, but none the less I have to take that kind of thing in my stride.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I too have problems with Chapter IV. I too have read the extensive debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, and I read it before I tabled the amendment. I was not satisfied that the debate was comprehensive and grappled with the essence of the problem as to whether, under Chapter IV, there would be effective means of implementation to secure our heritage. I may be wrong, but the amendment was tabled in good faith and was not designed to waste the time of your Lordships' House.
In view of the fact that my noble friend the Minister is considering this matter, albeit along lines that are somewhat different from those proposed by my amendment but will nonetheless lead, one hopes, to the same end, perhaps I may have the opportunity of discussing the matter further with my noble friend the Minister between now and Third Reading. On the assumption, which I take for granted because he is always accessible to discussion, that he would be willing to discuss the matter, I should like to withdraw the amendment. I ask for leave to do so and, in doing so, thank all noble Lords for their contribution.
1882
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I am concerned with houses, but I am not concerned with houses in single occupation because, with respect, houses in single occupation do not fall within the ambit of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Amendment of Part III of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987]:
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 162:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
("Variation of leases under Part IV of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
In section 35(4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (variation of lease on grounds that it fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to the computation of a service charge), in paragraph (c), for "exceed" there shall be substituted "either exceed or be less than".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can on a purely technical amendment. In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 238.
Your Lordships may recall that in Committee I drew attention to the question of the consequential effects of enfranchisement of part of a development on the terms, particularly relating to service charges, of the balance of leases where there had been no enfranchisement. The Minister did not accept my protestations about deficiencies. It was put to me that there was already a remedy in the form of the relevant sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and that, if a landlord's right to recover service charges was interfered with, that was dealt with under the injurious affection provisions.
I believe that that is a little unsatisfactory. To deal with the latter point first, the injurious affection provisions meant that the obligation of the enfranchising tenants to pay was needlessly enlarged by the provision. Following the Committee stage, there was some dialogue between myself and the Minister and his officials. In the fullness of time I was given to understand that perhaps after all there was a point with which we could come to terms. Amendment No. 162 is a result of those deliberations.
I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to this point. It may not go as far as I should have liked. I still have reservations about whether the 1987 Landlord and Tenant Act can take into account deficiencies in service charge provisions arising as a consequence of this legislation as opposed to inherent deficiencies of an external kind. However, I must rely on the fact that he and his department have scrutinised the matter with some care. I therefore hope that this technical amendment will remedy that aspect by making a minor amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
Amendment No. 238 is consequential upon Amendment No. 162 in that it introduces into the Long Title of the Bill an amendment to include reference to Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Amendment No. 162 seeks to alter that

1883
provision and without Amendment No. 238 there would be no cross-reference in the Long Title. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I intervene to seek some clarification about the amendment. I believe it is a sensible amendment, but I understand that it provides that, where the service charge percentages in the building do not add up to 100 per cent., the landlord may apply to increase them in some way so that they do add up to 100 per cent. It.is in the interests of both the landlord and the tenant that the service charge percentages recoverable under leases should total 100 per cent. of the cost.
I understand that, under Section 38(10) of the 1987 Act, the court may make an order providing for payment of compensation in respect of loss sustained by the variation. In the case of an order being made increasing the percentages which may affect one or more of the tenants, I presume—perhaps my noble friend will confirm this point —that the tenant whose percentage is increased would normally expect an award of compensation to compensate for the economic loss suffered by having to pay however much more it may be than his lease provided, bearing in mind that when he bought the lease he would have received a percentage in it but would have no idea whether the other percentages in the building added up to 100 per cent.
The 1987 Act states that the percentages can be reduced by a variation of covenants if they add up to more than 100 per cent. Again, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether there have been cases in which percentages have been varied downwards in this way and whether in such cases the landlords have been entitled to recover compensation for the loss that they will have sustained. I ask this because the circumstances seem to be different here in that the landlords knew that they were entitled to recover more than 100 per cent. If they did so, they were in my view unjustly enriching themselves and I should have thought that it would be unreasonable for them to be able to recover compensation for that loss.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am slightly concerned about the provisions if they mean that people will find that the percentage set in their lease varies. That should give us great cause for worry. I support the point made by my noble friend Lord Coleraine that when buying a lease people see what the percentage will be—and I have seen some recently ranging from 1.3 per cent. to 10 per cent.—but if that is suddenly to be changed, those concerned will have no way of knowing how it relates to others. It is important that, whatever the computation, tenants should be able to understand it precisely and to see that what they are paying is a fair amount.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not think that there is anything mysterious here. The Government did not feel that there was anything wrong with the original wording. Although successful applications for variation may be made under the 1987 Act, I accept
1884
that there may be some ambiguity and I am therefore happy to accept the amendments which have been moved by the noble Earl.
Turning to the points made by my noble friends, I do not think that there is a problem because the provisions mean that one would be paying a larger share of a smaller amount, for example, when half the estate enfranchises. Therefore, the result is that nobody will end up paying any more than they would otherwise.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 162A:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
.—(1) Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (Tenants' right of first refusal) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (relevant disposals) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (1A)—
"(1B) (a) subject to paragraph (c), in this Part a relevant disposal shall be deemed to include, where the landlord is a body corporate, the disposal of a controlling interest in the landlord (other than to an associated company of the landlord);
(b) for the purposes of this Part, a person has a controlling interest in a company if, had he been a company, the other company would have been its subsidiary;
(c) this subsection shall not apply if the value of the landlord's interest in any premises to which this Part applies, free from all charges, is less than 50 per cent. of the total asset value of the landlord immediately before the disposal of such controlling interest."
(3) The following section shall be added after section 11—
Further provisions where disposal made in contravention of Part I
11A.—(1) Where—

(a) there has been a disposal of a controlling interest in the landlord to which this Part would have applied had section 4(1B) been in force at the time of the disposal, and

(b) that disposal was made within three years before the coming into force of this section, and

(c) the premises affected by such disposal are still premises to which this Part applies,

the requisite majority of qualifying tenants of the constituent flats may, before the end of the period specified in subsection (2), serve a notice on the landlord requiring him to furnish a person (whose name and address is specified for the purpose in the notice) with the particulars specified by section 5 and the date on which such disposal was made; and in the following provisions of this Part any reference to "the new landlord" shall include a reference to the landlord.
(2) The period referred to in subsection (1) above is the period of three months beginning with the date on which this section comes into force.
(3) Any person served with a notice in accordance with subsection (1) above shall comply with the notice within the period of one month beginning with the date on which the notice is served on him."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now almost exactly six years to the day since the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 was enacted. Noble Lords may remember that it was enacted immediately before the 1987 general election. Part I of that Act provides a procedure whereby in certain circumstances the tenants in a block of flats are offered the right of first refusal in the event of the freeholder wishing to sell the freehold. In a nutshell, where a freeholder wishes to sell he must state his price, and if the tenants wish to

1885
buy they should be able to buy at that price. If they do not wish to buy, then the freeholder is able to sell elsewhere, but for a period he may not do so except at the same or a greater price.
This Bill gives the tenants active and not passive rights of purchase. Therefore, everything else being equal, it would seem likely as a general rule that this Bill will to some extent render Part I of the 1987 Act superfluous. I am choosing my words with some care because I am generalising. What I believe I can say is, first, that in blocks of flats with less than two-thirds qualifying tenants, as defined in this Bill, enfranchisement can only come passively under the 1987 Act, if at all; and, secondly, this Bill offers nothing to short lease tenants and long lessees who do not qualify under the low-rent test, but those tenants may have rights under Part I of the 1987 Act. So, even after the passing of this Act, the 1987 Act will remain the only legislative avenue by which the tenants of some blocks of flats will have at least some hope of enjoying the control of their own homes which this Bill offers to many long leaseholders at low rents.
Part I of the 1987 Act gave to many tenants the right of first refusal where the freeholder wished to assign his reversion. One of the exceptions to this right, under Section 4(2), was the case of a disposal by a company to an associated company. When that happened, it meant that a property owning company could assign its reversion to a newly created associated company and immediately sell the shares in that company to a third-party purchaser—and could do so without giving the tenants any right of first refusal. From the outset this has been considered a loophole, a defect, in the Act. I suspect, however, that the draftsman was well aware of the possibilities given to corporate landlords to side-step their tenants' right of first refusal. It may have been thought that there was no particular reason why a corporate or any landlord should wish to do this.
Landlords would know that their tenants, as special purchasers, would be likely to outbid any third party if they were interested in buying. If they were not interested in buying, it would not matter whether or not they had that opportunity. Indeed, it is difficult to see why any landlord should not want to give his tenants the first chance to buy in those circumstances.
In fact, this has not altogether been how things have worked out. The published findings of the study into the working and public perceptions of the 1987 Act, carried out for the department in 1991, make this clear. The main way, as I understand it, in which things go wrong is that many landlords sell without first making any offer of first refusal to their tenants. The tenants generally have a measure of protection when that happens because, where they had a right of first refusal under the Act but that right has not been honoured, they are given the right under Section 16 to compel a sale by the purchaser at the price he paid.
This right, of course, does not exist where the reversion has been sold by an associated company share sale. In one case which has recently been brought to my notice, the tenants were ready, willing and able to buy the reversion. The associated company device was used to thwart the tenants, and
1886
ownership passed. The tenants remain ready, willing and able to do a deal with the new purchaser at the price it paid for the shares, but they have no rights under the Act. They have no right of first refusal and no right of buy-out.
The amendments which I am moving to the 1987 Act have been carefully drafted to close this way by which the right of first refusal may legitimately, but in breach of the social intentions of the Act, be circumvented. Section 4 would be amended to give to tenants a right of first refusal in the case of the sale of a controlling interest in a company which owns the freehold reversion to a block of flats where the net value of the reversion is worth at least half the gross asset value of the company. It will be seen that the drafting bends over backwards not to touch genuine commercial transactions to the extent that it may not be 100 per cent. effective for tenants. That may be said of the original legislation and should not be a bar to a modest extension of the provisions of that legislation now.
The second and consequential amendment would, in cases where no right of first refusal had been offered, extend to such share sales the right to buy out the ultimate purchaser, and I should point out that there will be a retroactive element here, as there is in the enfranchisement provisions of this Bill. For three months after the section comes into force, the right of buy-out will be exercisable in respect of disposals made within the previous three years.
I am conscious that, even with the careful drafting of these amendments, all points will not have been covered; some points may need further attention, and there may be anomalies. This is, however, an important loophole in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as I hope and believe my noble friend will recognise, and it should be closed. I would, therefore, ask my noble friend, if these amendments are not perfect as they stand, to recommend their acceptance on the basis that the Government will take this problem in hand and move further and better amendments when the Bill is once again in another place. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment because the case of Harley House has caused grave concern to Westminster City Council. The chairman of Westminster's housing committee has written to the Secretary of State for the Environment on this matter because he considers that, in being so involved with the matter of enfranchisement in relation to this Bill, we have tended to overlook the right of first refusal.
Most of the residents and tenants of Harley House are on rack rents or are statutory tenants and had arranged their finance—we are talking about £16 million, so they were prepared to pay quite a substantial sum—but they found that the original freeholder took advantage of a loophole in the drafting and, according to the letter from the chairman of the housing committee,
"created a wholly owned subsidiary company, transferred ownership of Harley House to that company then subsequently sold the company to a third party"—

1887
to a plc. That means that it does not qualify as a "relevant disposal". I shall not quote further from that letter, but it makes it clear that Westminster City Council is disturbed by this case because it has the highest proportion of long leaseholders in the country. It has supported the Bill, which it believes to be an important piece of legislation.
What amazes me is that under employment law if one passes employees from one company to a related company the company's obligations pass with them, but obviously under the Bill that does not apply. If one transfers the property to a related company, one's responsibilities are shed. The property does not have to be offered to the residents and tenants. That is unfortunate, and I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the brevity of my reply will not demonstrate to my noble friends that I am not interested in the subject. I understand it wholly. I have every sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Coleraine said. I am well aware of the case cited by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
My noble friend has made a, valiant attempt to find a solution to the problem. It is a solution which has eluded us for the past five years. Knowing how difficult it has proved so far—the problem has been examined on a number of occasions since 1987—it is unlikely that we shall find a solution in time for an amendment to be made at this late stage of the Bill. But I can assure the House that we shall continue to examine this issue until a solution is found. Unfortunately, we do not think it would be right to jump in and agree to an inappropriate solution. Having said that, and with that assurance, I hope that my noble friend can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I listened to what my noble friend said. I accept that this may not be the time to insert the amendment into the Bill. I took great comfort from the way that my noble friend approached the problem. He was saying that the department has found no way round the problem during the past five years, but I do not for a moment believe that he was suggesting that it would be anything like that length of time before a solution was found. It should not be left that length of time. I rely on the assurances of his department that the matter will be dealt with in the future, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 [Jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunals]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 169:
Page 85, line 13, after ("section") insert ("68 or").
Page 85, line 27, at end insert:
("( ) the amount of any payment falling to be made by virtue of section 16(2);").
Page 85, line 29, after ("II") insert ("and, in the case of costs to which section 30(1) or 57(1) applies, the liability of any person or persons by virtue of any such provision to pay any such costs").
Page 86, line 9, after ("under") insert ("or by virtue of").
Page 86, line 17, leave out ("Any") and insert ("No").
Page 86, line 17, after ("under") insert ("or by virtue of").
Page 86, line 19, leave out ("borne by that party") and insert ("recoverable by order of any court (whether in consequence of a transfer under subsection (4) or otherwise)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 86, line 28, after ("but") insert:
("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 171. I have had a number of meetings with various noble Lords to discuss the measures we are bringing forward on estate management schemes.
One of the areas of concern is whether there is a right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal over the decisions of leasehold valuation tribunals in considering applications for estate management schemes. The answer is that the Bill will give the applicant for an estate management scheme the right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
That right of appeal does not extend to any other person who might be affected by the application or by the decision of the leasehold valuation tribunal. We are concerned that where persons have made representations and appeared before the leasehold valuation tribunal they too should have the opportunity of making an appeal against the decision of the tribunal where there are grounds for them to do so. I therefore propose to widen the right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal to include such persons. I hope that that proposal is welcomed by the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does "person" in this case include also a body corporate such as a local authority?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes, it does.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 86, line 31, at end insert—
("and
(b) in relation to any proceedings on an application for a scheme to be approved by a tribunal under section 65, paragraph 2(a) of that Schedule shall apply as if any person appearing before the tribunal in accordance with subsection (5) of that section were a party to the proceedings.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Agreements excluding or modifying rights of tenant under Chapter I or II]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 172 and 173:
Page 87, line 44, leave out ("immediate or a superior").
Page 88, line 35, leave out from ("and") to end of line 36 and insert ("subsections (5) to (7) of section 53 shall apply in relation to the lease as they apply in relation to a lease granted under that section.").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 174:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
("Domicile conditions
.Where a tenant of a flat or house who does not occupy it as his principal residence acquires the freehold of the premises in question under the provisions of Chapter I or Chapter III and subsequently sells the freehold within three years at a profit, the Secretary of State may deem him to be domiciled in the United Kingdom for tax purposes irrespective of his actual place of domicile.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Tuesday last week and again two days ago, I revealed the enormous profits that would be made on enfranchisement of high value properties in areas such as Belgravia where leases have 30 years or thereabouts to run. A typical example would be where a property was purchased and then enfranchised at a total cost of just over £1.2 million and then sold shortly afterwards for £1.5 million. That would produce a profit of £276,000, or a little over 22.5 per cent. Where the lease has 40 years to run, the profit would be almost as great, at just over £250,000, and where it has 20 years to run it would be slightly below £250,000. All this is on the assumption that the share of the marriage value granted to the landlord under the terms of the Bill remains unaltered.
Now that the Government, with the vigorous support of the Opposition, have successfully resisted amendments to increase the share of the marriage value attributable to the ground landlord, those theoretical high profits will become a reality. But even if the landlords lose, at least the Treasury will gain to a limited extent—provided that the enfranchising tenant is domiciled in the UK. In the example I have given, the Treasury would receive between £108,000 and £110,000 by way of capital gains tax, less expenses, depending upon whether any other gains had been received by the enfranchiser in the course of the year. It would receive slightly more if the tenant made a habit of enfranchising and therefore became liable to income tax plus higher rate tax. Just 200 such cases a year would raise £22 million for the Treasury. That would be extremely welcome in these days when the Treasury is so strapped for cash that there is talk of making almost everyone pay prescription charges.
However, there is one large fly in the ointment. Rather more than half the people who buy high value property in the most affluent parts of London are domiciled outside the UK. The amendment is in no way designed to discriminate against them. On the contrary, it is designed to treat everyone equally: to create a level playing field, as it were—and I am sure that we are all in favour of level playing fields these days. The Californian multimillionaire cited frequently to your Lordships by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would have to pay his fair whack. What could be fairer than that, since any Englishman who made a similar profit in the United States, or in most other countries, would have to pay tax, irrespective of his place of domicile.
Acceptance of the amendment would not merely ensure equal treatment for everyone in the United Kingdom who happens to be resident in the United
1890
Kingdom; it would bring us into line with normal international practice. The amendment does not of course infringe Commons privilege in any way: I have taken the trouble to ascertain that fact. It should be noted also that the power is permissive and not mandatory. So the Secretary of State could establish such exemptions for borderline cases as he thought appropriate, or could decide not to implement the rule at all if public opinion permitted him so not to do. The wording has been checked by drafting experts and lawyers and found to be without blemish. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will look at the amendment sympathetically. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has made out a perfect case. He quoted the United States of America. The tax authorities in the USA are endeavouring, under unitary tax proposals, to tax British companies on their total world profits. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of that fact and is fighting the tax authorities in the USA.
My noble friend stated that under the Bill one investor must give to another investor half the marriage value. He knows that I never agreed with that and never shall. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if the lessee does not happen to be domiciled in this country he will escape paying capital gains tax. That must be wrong. In any event, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking for ways of obtaining more money in order to reduce the deficit. It is wrong to make a gratuitous gift to people who do not live in this country; it is bad enough to make a gratuitous gift at the expense of the landlord to people who do live here.
I believe that my noble friend should accept the amendment. I hope that he will not say that it will upset the double taxation agreements with the various companies. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, the amendment contains a discretionary power. If there were to be a violation of any double taxation agreement that could be overcome. I hope that my noble friend will look sympathetically at the amendment, which has great merit. The wording can be changed at a later stage if it is incorrect but I think that the Government should accept the spirit of the amendment.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am in full sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It is offensive that non-resident leaseholders should be able to buy a property and even more offensive that they should be able to do so at a large discount. It is more offensive still that they should be able to take away the profits tax free. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will point out all kinds of objections to the amendment. I am in full sympathy with the intention of the amendment, which is to take into our taxation system some part of the profits. To that extent I support it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in moving the amendment and of my noble friends in supporting it. It was kind of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to

1891
consider the fact that the Treasury needs every available source of funding that it can get its fingers on. But I cannot possibly accept the new clause and the reasons are many. First, a tenant of a house has to be resident anyway in order to be able to enfranchise. Therefore, the reference to Chapter III has no meaning. Secondly, the clause will have no effect at all on people who may not have resided in their flat but live elsewhere in England or Wales. Such people are already liable to taxation on gains from the disposal of property. In the case of overseas residents, the new clause may well be considered discriminatory against Community nationals under European law; and a company freeholder cannot have a domicile anyway.
Thirdly, its effect will be rather swingeing because where it does bite it will apply the deemed domicile for all tax purposes. That would not be fair. Equally, if the tenant is to be liable for capital gains tax it is not clear whether he may offset losses on any other property against the profit on the house or premises. Fourthly, the new clause does not suggest how the Secretary of State might become aware that the ex-tenant in question has disposed of the property in the first place, let alone made a profit.
I shall not discuss at great length the issue of the marriage value. We have had many discussions and my noble friends and I disagree. I hope that having explained the serious faults in the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is persuaded to withdraw it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clark and Lord Boardman, for their support. The amendment has arisen later than I had expected and many noble Lords who might have supported it have had to leave. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, it is offensive that people can buy property at a discount, sell, and pay no tax on it.
The Government's objections do not stand up. How can the provision discriminate against nationals of other EC countries if they are treated exactly the same as the rest of us? At present the discrimination is all the other way. If they can escape taxation while those resident and domiciled in this country suffer taxation it is we who are discriminated against.
Amendment No. 14, which was agreed to, covers residents of every kind and definition, and merely provides that one must have lived in the property for three years out of the previous 10 years to qualify. That is not residential as the term is normally understood. There are many borderline cases, and I am afraid that the Minister is wrong.
It is true that in current circumstances the Treasury needs every penny, and although that is not the main reason for tabling the amendment, I agree that every little helps. Public opinion supports the amendment, to the extent that it is aware. The amendment does not discriminate. It brings us into line with other countries, in particular the United States of America and other industrialised countries. It is permissive; if it is faulty the Secretary of State need not apply the provision, or can improve upon it. I believe that the other place should at least be given a chance to look
1892
at the amendment, which is supported by the Country Landowners' Association and similar organisations. In those circumstances, I must test the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 174A:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of occupants who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill
.Any provision in any lease or sublease of any residential flat which prohibits the lessee or sub-lessee from providing accommodation therein for a person who is mentally handicapped or mentally ill, shall be unenforceable, unless the behaviour of that person infringes the right of occupants of other flats in the same building to quiet enjoyment thereof.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who was to move the amendment, it has fallen to my lot. The noble Lord was present in the Chamber until a moment ago but rather like the bad fairy in the pantomime he has disappeared. He has left me as an inadequate understudy for I am unaware of the arguments which he had intended to put forward.
However, on reading Hansard I was encouraged, as no doubt were others, by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee to his preference for a general anti-discrimination Bill. I assumed that as Government spokesman he was speaking for the Government; but in an earlier letter to me dated 18th March the noble Lord was not as generous. He referred to a general Bill dealing with such discriminatory covenants. I hope that I may rely on his later, more helpful and more logical reference made on 22nd March in your Lordships' House to a general Bill aimed at non-discrimination.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has returned to his seat but I am afraid that he is a little late because I am already moving the amendment. I too share the preference for general antidiscrimination legislation. However, the fact is that we do not have such legislation; nor does what I know of the parliamentary programme and the Government's expressed intentions lead me to believe that a rights Bill is just around the corner. But we have the Housing and Urban Development Bill in front of us today.
We have evidence that discriminatory clauses are written into leases. The somewhat notorious case, now happily remedied, suggests that if anyone had the time to search leases they would find many more examples. Given the opportunity to prevent what we all agree to be wrong I find the technical argument against doing something about it unconvincing. Parliament has the job of asserting people's rights. As this small assertion of rights seems to be within the scope of the Bill and can hardly be said to offend the rights of other parties I warmly supported my noble friend when he first moved the amendment in Committee. I use the word "friend" in a non-political sense. It is said of the man who waited for the perfect day to plant his bulbs while letting slip the opportunity of quite suitable days that his garden the following spring was somewhat bare. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am covered in shame for not being in the Chamber when the amendment was called and I apologise to your Lordships. What I say first and foremost is: thank heaven for the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
I drafted this new clause. I hope that your Lordships will find that it is not only short, clear in its meaning and certain in its effect but also that it has a worthy purpose. I say that for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has already put before the House. I wish to stress that the new clause ensures that people who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill will be allowed to live in residential flats unless their behaviour disturbs other people in other flats in the same building.
Why should not mentally handicapped and mentally ill people be allowed to live in their parent's flats? To have leases or sub-leases which prevent them from doing so is, in my opinion, cruelly discriminating. I first discovered that that was happening when my late wife and I lived in one of the nearest and largest blocks of flats here in Westminster. We were deeply shocked when we found that a clause in our lease, which was a long lease, prevented our youngest daughter, who is mentally handicapped, from being there with us. We decided to ignore the clause by having her to stay with us in our flat from time to time.
I doubt whether the landlord's agent discovered that we were in breach of covenant and no proceedings were taken against us. That was some years ago and inquiries which I made at the time revealed to me that discriminatory clauses were common in many of the leases of flats in the London area and elsewhere. I became chairman of MENCAP soon after that happened and I made inquiries there. I found that it was a fairly common practice. I have no reason to believe that the practice has since been dropped.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde kindly wrote to me in March as follows:
"I sympathise strongly with your desire that no one should be prevented from leasing a flat simply because he or she is mentally handicapped or mentally ill. Such discrimination is clearly wrong. I should be interested to know whether in practice it is common for leases to discriminate in this way".
As to whether the practice is still common, I have not the facilities, the opportunities or the authority to carry out a national survey. I am not sure whether my noble friend has, but he would be in a better position than I to do so. However, I ask my noble friend to accept the evidence which, from personal experience, I have already given.
In his letter my noble friend went on to say that he does not believe that this Bill is the right place for the inclusion of provisions to prohibit discriminatory covenants. He points out what Part I does. He then says:
"The right place would be a general Bill dealing with such discriminatory covenants".
I am puzzled that my noble friend says that this Bill is not the right place in view of what is stated in the Long Title. It is the longest and most detailed Long Title that I have seen for some years. This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. I admit that it deals with long leases, leasehold enfranchisement and other specific matters,
1894
but it also deals with a wide range of matters concerning housing and urban development. If the new clause were to be inserted and if my noble friend considers that the Long Title needs some small further amendment, that could be done either by manuscript late this evening or on Third Reading. It is a small technical point which can be overcome quite easily.
Surely, the point is that if we do not deal with this problem now in this Bill, we shall miss a great opportunity to remove a serious injustice. If we wait for general anti-discriminatory legislation which we all hope—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, agrees with me—will come, we may have to wait for some years. A Bill is passing through the other place. It does not deal with this point but does deal with certain other matters of discrimination. However, the Government have made it clear that it will not reach the statute book this Session. We do not know whether there will be a government Bill next Session or what fate a Private Member's Bill would suffer in the next Session.
I beseech your Lordships to realise that this matter needs to be dealt with. We should be ashamed of such practices and try to put them right. That can be done in this Bill and I hope that my noble friend will agree to advise your Lordships to do so. beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, when I came into the House I had no intention of speaking in the debate. However, I am so profoundly shocked by what I have just heard that I rise to support my noble friend. I was sufficiently long in government to be fully aware of the kind of answers which are put before Ministers who must respond to amendments of this kind. Therefore I am apprehensive as regards the reply which we are likely to receive. I am sure that all kinds of reasons, as indicated by my noble friend, will be produced as to why this is not the right opportunity to accept the amendment.
I recall the vigorous measures that I as a Minister, along with my colleagues, took in government to make arrangements for mentally handicapped people to live in the community. It was a central plank of government policy to do so. If this kind of discriminatory clause in leases is commonplace, that is entirely in conflict with government policy as it has existed for a considerable time. Therefore, there is a clear obligation on the Government to take this opportunity to do something about it or, if not, to indicate that they will take a very early alternative opportunity to do something about it. I warmly support my noble friend.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I also support my noble friend. I have experience of mentally handicapped members of the family. Their condition was not severe but they needed sometimes to go into hospital. It is very important to be able to help them in every way. It is possible to help them in a far better way within the community where they are able to be with other people and learn a straightforward and honest way of life such as we all try to lead. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It affects

1895
a great many people and is very important. As already mentioned, this Bill provides an excellent opportunity to prevent such discrimination.
6 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I, too, hope that my noble friend the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the amendment. I live in a part of Surrey where we have six hospitals dealing with mentally-handicapped patients. I happen to be president of the friends' association of one of them. Many mentally-handicapped people contribute enormously to the community. If they are to be barred from living with their relatives under the terms of the Bill, it will deprive not only the community but also their families of a great deal of pleasure. I very much hope that my noble friend will think carefully about the proposal.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, when we were in Committee I am sure that the House will remember that the amendment was one of the last with which we dealt very late one night. In the absence of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Rix, I moved the amendment on their behalf from this Dispatch Box. It is, therefore, with great pleasure that I support the movers who are present in the Chamber today. I very much hope that the Minister will take on board the arguments and that he will give us a rather less dusty response than that which he gave me—admittedly rather late at night—in Committee.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to put on record our support for the amendment. I was shocked to discover that the problem, so ably explained by the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Renton, existed. In my innocence I had assumed that any such provision would have been against public policy and unenforceable on that ground. I am worried about the amendment's reference to "quiet enjoyment". Other noble Lords have much greater expertise in conveyancing terminology than myself, but I wonder whether the wording is appropriate. However, whether "quiet enjoyment" in the literal sense is quite the right way of expressing it matters not a jot. But we must put on record the importance—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that that is the term of art in this branch of the law which is appropriate in these circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I raised the issue because I wondered whether it would be possible for the behaviour of the people to whom the amendment refers actually to interfere with "quiet enjoyment". That sort of interference normally comes from a landlord. I did not want noble Lords to be confused about the literal meaning of "quiet enjoyment"; in other words, residing in one's flat without hearing noisy behaviour and the sort of thing that has perhaps led to some of the problems that underly the proposal are not what is referred to. However, I fear that I am
1896
in danger of attempting to draft out loud, which is the very last thing that one should do. I simply wish to express my support for the noble Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the amendment has had an interesting time, both in Committee when it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and today when it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am glad that my noble friend managed to arrive here in time. The story that he recounted was one that he had told me in private. I believe that it was right for the whole House to hear it.
I did not feel able to accept the amendment in Committee because I did not think that this Bill was an appropriate place for the inclusion of provisions to prohibit discriminatory covenants. At that time I suggested that a general Bill aimed at nondiscrimination might be the appropriate place. However, I have, as I said I would, considered the matter further. I am not aware of any current plans for a general non-discrimination Bill. Therefore, in the light of the support that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, received today and the common sense way in which the amendment was moved, I am content to accept an amendment of the type proposed for the Bill if it is your Lordships' wish. But, unfortunately, the drafting of the amendment is not quite right. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Government to return on Third Reading with our own amendment which would then be acceptable to noble Lords.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, and before the noble Lord, Lord Rix, replies to the debate—which he should do because he kindly moved my amendment—perhaps I may make a comment. We are well accustomed to parliamentary counsel thinking that they can do better than us, but what they really want to do is to do it differently. If that is the case, I am happy. However, I do not think that there is much wrong with the legal effect of the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall bear that point in mind and certainly mention it to parliamentary counsel.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the response that I have received from the Minister and, indeed, from all Members of your Lordships' House. I am also most grateful for the wonderful support that I have received on this occasion. I am pleased that the amendment has been accepted, albeit with some slight change of wording about which I am sure the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can come to a quiet arrangement. We are absolutely delighted. I am personally extremely delighted because I shall receive the credit for it, as opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to withdraw his accusation that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was the bad fairy and perhaps designate him as a good one.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I shall be delighted to subscribe to the fact that the noble Lord is a good fairy. I only hope that he is able to wave a magic wand in another place in regard to an anti-discrimination Bill in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 175:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
("Property owned by cathedral church
. There shall be no right under Chapter 1 or II to acquire any interest in or lease of any property which is vested in the capitular body of a cathedral church, within the meaning of the Cathedrals Measure 1963.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and of the noble Lords, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Strathcona, it falls to me to move the amendment. Unlike Amendment No. 174, thankfully, the amendment needs little explanation. It is designed to exclude cathedral property—notably that in cathedral closes—from the provisions of the Bill, broadly in line with exemptions already granted to the National Trust and with those covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, (if it is accepted by another place) regarding other historic properties.
The overall number of properties involved is small. No one would ever accuse deans and chapters of being wicked or rapacious landlords—the sort of people at whom this part of the Bill is generally aimed. There is little need to describe the unique beauty and tranquillity of our cathedral closes. They have retained their individual character because of integrated long-term planning made possible by the enlightened management policies of their governing bodies. Closes are usually an oasis of peace and tranquillity in the urban environment. Moreover, they are accessible to everyone, not just those resident in them. Agreement to the amendment would be a small concession for the Government to make, but it would be a positive way to demonstrate their real concern for charities. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am bound to say that I have a certain sympathy for the amendment, but not as drafted. I have in mind the words,
"property which is vested in the capitular body of the cathedral church".
I say that because chapters own a great deal of property outside a cathedral close. But where there is a cathedral close in a conservation area, I think that there is merit in the amendment. However, in my view, it goes far too far. I know, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford knows, of chapters which own property that is right outside conservation areas and which, indeed, should be subject to the Bill as drafted. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, there is some merit in looking at the matter. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I am most grateful to him for bringing it forward. I fully accept the qualifications suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. But my
1898
concern certainly would be for those medieval cathedrals which were of course in origin monastic foundations and to that extent religious and community buildings. That religious and community focus still remains, though they are now run by deans and chapters. They draw the crowds, whether tourists or others, because they are a focus of the community. For that purpose, they need communities and people to run them.
However, I have to say that there is something in the make-up of the clergy that sometimes makes it extremely difficult for them to get on on with one another. But putting that on one side—fortunately none of my colleagues is present—I think there is a risk that under the provisions of this Bill properties in our mediaeval cathedral closes could be alienated. There is some risk that if in future a further development is needed because of changing circumstances in order to enhance the community aspect of a building, that may be that much more difficult because the property is no longer available to the Dean and Chapter of the cathedral. I do not wish to engage in special pleading on behalf of the Church but I feel there is some substance in what is being proposed here, albeit in an amended form. I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord Renton: My Lords, subject to what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde may have to say, I too am impressed by the arguments in favour of this amendment. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I should have thought—this is a question of fact which is very difficult to ascertain —that most of the properties which would be covered by the amendment would be in or near cathedral closes. The noble Lord shakes his head. He may know better than I.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Perhaps he should consult the Dean and Chapter of Durham Cathedral to discover exactly which properties they hold.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that there are Church properties outside cathedral closes. There is no doubt about that. But I was not aware they owned large blocks of flats away from the cathedral. In principle I support this amendment. I am not aware of the technicalities that are involved but in principle I would think it unacceptable certainly for cathedral closes to have their character changed and for the domination by the Dean and Chapter of the cathedral to be disturbed by the leasehold enfranchisement of properties within the closes. I think this is a matter which deserves the serious attention of the Government.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for having proposed this amendment in the absence of all the noble Lords who have added their name to it, including my noble friends. I am grateful for the comments of the right reverend Prelate who feels there is cause for concern here.

1899
The amendment seeks to disapply both the enfranchisement and lease renewal provisions in Chapters I and II of this Bill to property which is vested in the capitular body of a cathedral church. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, thinks that this is a safeguard which is necessary to preserve the appearance of the property around our great cathedrals.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull recently met my honourable friend the Minister for Housing in the hope the Government would accept this amendment. He knows that we cannot accept it—perhaps he passed that on to the noble Lord, Lord Monson—because, quite simply, it is unnecessary. The capitular body of a cathedral church may own property near to a cathedral for various reasons and, of course, that property may or may not be of historic or architectural importance. I am sure that the noble Lord accepts that there is no issue in respect of property which has no heritage value.
Properties near to, but separate from, the cathedral are, I understand, usually run in a commercial manner, as any landlord would run a property. As far as the rights of tenants are concerned, it makes little difference who their landlords may be. There is no reason at all why the enfranchisement provisions in this Bill should not apply to any such property let on long leases.
In the case of Canterbury Cathedral, to take one of the best-known examples, I understand that it is unlikely that many tenants will enfranchise. Most of their property is either let on short leases, or consists of two or three storey buildings above shops which are excluded by the 10 per cent. commercial threshold exemption. The noble Lord is concerned that enfranchisement rights might be extended by some future government to short leases, or that the 10 per cent. commercial threshold might be reduced. However, we cannot speculate on what future governments might do.
I appreciate that some residential properties, such as those in the Cathedral close at Salisbury for example, are more closely related to the Cathedral. They indubitably form an integral part of the architectural ambience of an attractive and historic area. Your Lordships may be surprised that the cathedral authority has chosen to let much of this residential property on long leases. Where this has been the case, again, I can see no reason why the residential leaseholders should not be able to enfranchise. Indeed—this is the point of the amendment—many of them may have already done so, under the provisions of the 1967 Act. Capitular bodies were not exempted landlords for the purposes of that Act.
We have debated estate management schemes at length. Several amendments have been incorporated to improve and strengthen the concept. I have undertaken, as I said, to move yet more amendments at Third Reading. The House has welcomed the changes made already and those still to come, and has acknowledged the power of the estate management scheme as a weapon in the heritage armoury. It is for
1900
this reason that I am convinced that the amendment, though laudable in aim, is totally unnecessary. There is no cause for concern about cathedral closes. There are adequate safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the undeniable quality, beauty and architectural heritage of some of the buildings in them is maintained for future generations. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will feel he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he indicate whether there is any possibility that the Government would look favourably upon a compromise amendment at Third Reading which would allow such tenants to extend their leases while preventing enfranchisement?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has to prove that enfranchisement would be detrimental to cathedral closes. As he has not been able to do so, I cannot offer him any comfort for Third Reading.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I must say I am disappointed in that reply. There obviously seems to be no room for compromise here at all. I am grateful to all those who have spoken in favour of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, thinks it goes too far. Perhaps it does and it would be nice to think we could come back on Third Reading with a compromise amendment. I thought this was supposed to be a Conservative Government and that the Conservatives were in favour of conserving all that is good in our country and had a respect for tradition. I do not see much sign of that at the moment. My inclination, as I cannot be here late on Tuesday, would be to press this amendment to a Division. However, that might be unfair upon the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the other noble Lords who added their names to this amendment, as they may wish to return with a compromise amendment just to see whether they can get it accepted on Third Reading. I do not wish to take it upon myself to press the amendment now, lose it and then not have an opportunity for the noble Lords to return with a compromise amendment. That being the case, I shall withdraw the amendment on the understanding that a compromise amendment may well be introduced at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 [Power to prescribe procedure under Chapters I and II]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 176 to 178:
Page 91, line 44, leave out ("provide") and insert (", in particular, make provision—
(a)").
Page 91, line 46, at end insert:
("(b) for the payment of a deposit—

(i) by a nominee purchaser (within the meaning of Chapter I) on exchange of contracts, or

(ii) by a tenant who has given a notice under section 39; and

(c) with respect to the following matters, namely—

1901

(i) the person with whom any such deposit is to be lodged and the capacity in which any such person is to hold it, and

(ii) the circumstances in which the whole or part of any such deposit is to be returned or forfeited.").

Page 92, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 89 [Notices]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 179 to 181:
Page 92, line 10, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 92, line 17, after first ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
Page 92, line 28, after ("address") insert ("in England and Wales").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 90 [Orders and regulations]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 93, line 16, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Part").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [General interpretation of Part I]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 94, line 20, after ("is") insert ("(unless the context otherwise requires)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monk Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 183A:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause:
Exceptions to the right to buy
(".—(1) In paragraph 10(1) (groups of dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act (exceptions to the right to buy)—

(a) for the words "persons of pensionable age", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "elderly persons"; and

(b) for those words, in the second place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "persons aged 60 or more".

(2) For paragraph 11 (individual dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age) of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by elderly persons, and

(b) was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person who was aged 60 or more (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).

(2) In determining whether a dwelling is particularly suitable, no regard shall be had to the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in section 181 (jurisdiction of county court), any question arising under this paragraph shall be determined as follows.
(4) If an application for the purpose is made by the tenant to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the service of the landlord's notice under section 124, the question shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) If no such application is so made, the question shall be deemed to have been determined in favour of the landlord.
(6) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1st January 1990."
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the 1985 Act (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause and the consequential amendments to Schedule 21, Amendments Nos. 236A and 236B, return us to the subject of right to buy and housing for the elderly. At present unless a property is part of a sheltered group landlords have to apply to the Secretary of State in every case for a statutory determination. Since this arrangement started in 1989 there have been some 4,000 applications. That is a very bureaucratic exercise. Determinations have also taken an inconveniently long time.
The Association of District Councils has long felt that a more automatic and less restrictive arrangement would be preferable. Therefore, in Committee on 29th March I moved an amendment to change paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 1985, the provision which deals with sheltered housing. That amendment recognised modern developments in call systems by removing the need for either a resident warden or a common room provided an appropriate call system is installed. My noble friend the Minister felt that that amendment went too wide. However, he proposed further discussion of the matter. In view of that offer the Committee permitted me to withdraw the original amendment. I am glad to say that the subsequent discussions produced a way forward, which we managed to identify after some discussion and much help, hence the new clause.
This time the proposed new clause relates primarily to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 of the 1985 Act. That is the provision under which landlords ask the Secretary of State to make determinations excluding pre-1990 housing from the right to buy. The Secretary of State must make such determination if he is satisfied that a property is particularly suitable for people of pensionable age and was let for occupation by such persons.
Your Lordships may also recall that paragraph 11 was inserted by an amendment agreed by this House by a large majority in 1989, against an extremely tight parliamentary timetable. Therefore, it is perhaps lacking in some refinement of detail which might otherwise have been possible.
The purpose of the new clause is very simple. It is designed to remove the need for a reference to the Secretary of State if the tenant is content to accept the landlord's view that his or her home is elderly persons' housing. As the law stands at present, there is no provision for finding out whether the tenant agrees with the landlord that that is so. If the tenant makes an application under the right to buy the landlord must apply to the Secretary of State within the somewhat short period of four weeks. The landlord is not given time to discuss with the tenant whether he wants to pursue a right-to-buy claim. In fact, the landlord could probably be criticised for attempting any such discussion. I bear in mind that the Minister said in Committee that the majority of decisions made by the Secretary of State were in the landlord's favour in any case.
The present arrangements require landlords to put a detailed case to the department, even if the tenant is ready to accept that the property is particularly suitable for elderly people and even though that is the view the Secretary of State takes in many instances. That is not merely a nuisance for landlords, it is also a nuisance for tenants at times because the tenant in his turn has to be invited to comment on the landlord's submission. That can be a particular burden on an elderly tenant. I gather that as a result tenants not infrequently withdraw their right-to-buy claim even before a decision is arrived at.
The proposed new clause would allow the landlord to respond to a tenant's right-to-buy claim by deciding to deny the right to buy. However, the tenant on his side would have the right to ask the Secretary of State whether the landlord was correct. In other words, the local authority makes a decision within set guidelines but the tenant has a right of appeal to the Minister. If the tenant asks the Secretary of State to step in, the department will doubtless ask the landlord for all his reasons, as now, and go through the same detailed procedures that we have at present. However, under the proposed new clause the process would be necessary only if the tenant was not satisfied with the local authority's decision. I believe that that is a useful contribution.
The new clause also makes another change which I believe to be worth while. Paragraphs 10 and 11 currently provide for housing to be excluded from the right to buy only if particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age and let to such persons. That precise linkage with the qualifying age for state pension seems to me to be inappropriate. Under the new clause the question would be whether the housing was particularly suitable for elderly people and had been let for occupation by a person aged 60 or more.
I know that many local authorities have allocated elderly persons' housing to tenants from age 60 even if they were fit and active in order to avoid the need for a further move in a few years' time. I do not believe that local authorities should have to run the risk of losing the ability to retain their elderly persons' housing as a result of such perfectly sensible actions which they have taken from time to time.
The two amendments to Schedule 21 are consequential and repeal provisions which are rendered otiose as a result of the new clause.
Finally, the new clause would make only modest changes, but, I believe, with advantage to tenants, to local authorities as landlords and to the Government by reducing the unnecessary number of referrals to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, having put my name to Amendment No. 183A I am delighted to support it as proposed by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton.
As chairman of the Rural Development Commission, which has been concerned with this matter since at least 1989, I am obviously anxious that wherever possible elderly people in rural areas are able to continue to live in their communities close to relatives and friends. That presupposes the availability of property suitable for their needs. Properties built for the elderly in rural areas may not always be to the same specification applicable in urban areas but such properties, once sold, are no more easily replaced.
The amendment allows a more flexible view to be taken of what constitutes an elderly person's dwelling. It will safeguard the availability of such housing in rural areas and it will remove the bureaucracy and uncertainty in the present system. For those reasons I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House would also like to support the amendment. We believe that it proposes a sensible way forward which places the presumption of a decision at local level where all the circumstances can be taken into account if there is a clear need for such housing to remain available for renting and long leases. Therefore, we very much support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I happen to live in a rural area when I am not in London. In my old constituency of Huntingdonshire I was familiar with the problem which arises when working people come to the end of their working lives and for one reason or another cannot continue to live in their present home. It may be close to a factory or a cottage tied to the former employment, which may not necessarily be farm work. Farm workers are often treated with great care by their employers in such circumstances. For various reasons retired people then start looking for somewhere to live. The problem does not arise only in rural areas. To the extent that the amendment would help them when they have found somewhere, it is worthy of support.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, as I did at the previous stage. A moment ago we discussed discriminatory provisions. By substituting for "pensionable age" the terminology, "persons aged 60 or more", I am glad that any discrimination between men and women who reach pensionable age at different times can be avoided. That is perhaps a side issue.

1905
While I strongly support the amendment, I have one small anxiety. At paragraph 11(2) (b) of Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act which is to be substituted, there is a reference to property let to a physically disabled person. I have difficulty in understanding the purpose of that reference at that point because the provision is largely directed to housing designed for elderly people, although there is no clear cut division between the two. What worries me is that under the existing legislation there is the possibility—albeit it relies on the Secretary of State—to except from the right-to buy provision property suitable for occupation by a physically disabled person. That has gone from the amendment. I do not know whether the Minister can help me on that.
I was aware that the amendment was promoted by the Association of District Councils. About an hour and a half ago I received a telephone call from that body. I returned the call expecting it to be an answer to that question only to discover that it wished me to chair a session at its conference. My diary is therefore fuller but my knowledge no greater. If the noble Lord can help I should be grateful.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I welcome the new clause moved by my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton. We have debated the right to buy in housing for elderly people on many occasions in the past. The legislative history on the subject has borne an uncomfortable resemblance to a tug of war between the interests of tenants wishing to buy their homes and landlords wishing to retain them for reletting. I share the hope of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton that modest changes in the legislation will prove to be of benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked an interesting question about physically disabled people.
I understand that the reference in paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 as enacted was repealed in 1988 as a result of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. It was thought at that time to be discriminating against people with disabilities. It was therefore a perfectly appropriate question to ask. I hope that that is the correct answer. If it is not, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
I thank my noble friend for bringing forward a beautifully drafted and crafted amendment which the Government can accept. I am sure that it is welcomed by the whole House.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say a word of thanks to my noble friend and to all the people who have supported me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 183B:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
("Right to require former landlord repurchase
.—(1) In the circumstances and subject to the conditions stated in this section, a former secure tenant has the right to require repurchase by the former landlord.
(2) The right to require repurchase shall cease to exist where the former secure tenant disposes of the interest
1906
acquired under the right to buy or right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms, or where he ceases to occupy as his residence the dwelling house in which the interest is held.
(3) Where a dwelling house is repurchased under the provisions of this section, the price payable by the former landlord shall be—

(a) where the dwelling house was purchased under the right to buy, the price for which it was purchased; or

(b) where the dwelling house was acquired on rent to mortgage terms, the sum of the initial payment and any subsequent payment made in pursuance of such an acquisition, or, such other amount as is agreed between the former landlord and the former secure tenant.

(4) Where a local authority makes any payment to a former secure tenant in relation to a repurchase under the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall issue to that authority a supplementary credit approval, within the meaning of section 54 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (supplementary credit approvals) in an amount equal to the price payable for, and for the purpose of, repurchasing the dwelling house.
(5) The sum of payments made under this section in any year shall not exceed an amount to be prescribed annually by the Secretary of State, after consulting persons who appear to him to be representative of local authorities.
(6) In this section—

"former secure tenant" means a secure tenant who has exercised the right to buy or the right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms; and such a tenant has the right to require repurchase.

"the right to require repurchase" means the right, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions stated in this section, to require the former landlord to repurchase the interest acquired by the former secure tenant under the right to buy or right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms.

"the former landlord" means the landlord from whom the dwelling was purchased under the right to buy or the right to acquire on rent to mortgage terms.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am returning with an amendment discussed in broad outline at Committee stage. It is the right to repurchase by local authorities. We seek still to avoid homelessness among marginal owner occupiers when their financial situation deteriorates. I bring it back because I hope that an additional section in the clause will meet the Minister's objections which he raised at Committee stage in terms of the overall impact on financial resources.
The amendment requires former landlords to repurchase a house or a flat lost under the rent-to-mortgage scheme and to do so at the original price, with supplementary credit approval so that their power to borrow or to spend for other purposes would not be handicapped by the activity. To reflect the Government's response at Committee stage, subsection (5) provides that the sum total of payments available for that purpose should be prescribed annually by the Secretary of State in consultation with local authority organisations. As I recall, that was the main objection raised by the Minister at Committee stage. I hope that we have now met it.
Underlying the amendment are two propositions. We believe that few people will avail themselves of the scheme because it is not financially attractive compared with the right to buy—the existing scheme. However, we believe that it is such a misconceived scheme, pressing marginal purchasers into a financially unfavourable deal, that a disproportionately high

1907
percentage of them may wish to revert back to being tenants rather than risk losing their homes. I want for them a safe passage back.
All the evidence indicates a growing, continuing, lingering housing crisis arising from failure to invest in our housing stock and because local government until this year was not allowed to recycle fully all its capital receipts from sold-off stock and was not allowed resources to modernise the stock which it held. On the other hand, it is a crisis of ownership. An increasing number of families, who could not afford to do so, bought homes in the 1980s, sometimes because they were denied by this Government the opportunity to rent from the local authority. They now find that they cannot maintain their mortgage payments. Either their housing debts exceed their housing assets, or their financial ability to pay has gone. It is the problem of both negative equity and lack of a mortgage benefit scheme.
Some 300,000 families are more than six months in arrears. The important point for the purpose of the amendment is that most mortgage default is on cheaper housing. In other words, default is a problem of low or suddenly falling incomes rather than high housing costs. We fear that, if unamended, the Bill will force more people into that situation.
It is from shortage in the housing market of property to rent that most other problems flow. Unable to rent, most young people are forced to buy. Those who cannot afford even to do that have joined the queue for bed and breakfast accommodation. The problem relates to families who are not able to rent and cannot afford to buy. It is silly and deeply anti-social to press low income tenants to move from the security of renting a council house into the swampy land of buying it and subsequently risking default and repossession. Under the Bill those people have that right. We do not now seek to stop them although we may judge the exercise of that right unwise. But if they come unstuck —we suspect that a high proportion of them will do so—we do not wish to punish them further by seeing them homeless. Why will those people come unstuck? If they could afford to buy a council house under the RTB, they would already have gone for that on outright purchase which produces a more financially advantageous deal. With its structured discounts that would be more attractive and cheaper.
By definition the people about whom we speak cannot afford the right to buy and are being encouraged therefore into the financially more disadvantageous scheme of rents to mortgage. They are precisely the tenants who by definition have the lower income and are therefore more at risk. If they go into such a scheme and are partly employed, they will lose the right to any help with housing costs through a housing benefit scheme even though their hqusing costs will rise because they have to take on board insurance costs, repairs and so on.
All the evidence suggests that foreclosures and repossessions are associated with reduced or reducing employment. Therefore, those most marginal purchasers—and they are marginal because it is financially
1908
more attractive to go for outright RTB—will be extremely exposed to the vagaries of their employment situation. The amendment offers them a route back into keeping the home in which they live and from which their children go to local schools, saving considerable family distress and at no cost to the public purse. The Minister may say that local authorities already have the power to do that. We all agree, there is no difference between us in terms of the principles involved. What the amendment provides is what we do not have and that is the resources to make the principle a reality. We need supplementary credit approvals to make it possible, which means that in order to avoid the greater costs of homelessness we are willing to accept the point that the Minister made at Committee stage that the ability to grant supplementary credit approval should be within a finite annual total. Thus it could be staged throughout the course of the year to meet a need which we might otherwise avoid.
In the light of that, we have come back with an amendment specifically designed to address the Minister's criticism in regard to a finite resource in the course of the year. We do not disagree about the principle. Therefore we hope that we may together make available the resources to protect marginal purchasers at risk of losing their homes from actually becoming homeless. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this amendment would give former secure tenants who had purchased under the right-to-buy legislation, the right to require their landlord to buy back their homes at the price they had originally paid. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with right-to-buy purchasers who are having problems with resale, this proposal is not one that I can support.
I am fully aware that former tenants in certain kinds of ex-council flats have been experiencing difficulties over resale. In the present state of the market, lenders are indeed acting very cautiously. But once the market picks up, right-to-buy purchasers, along with other home owners, will benefit. Meanwhile, we are continuing to work with the building societies to do what we can. This seems to me to be the way forward, rather than imposing a duty on the landlord to repurchase.
In some respects, I am somewhat surprised to see this attempt to limit the independence and discretion of local authorities in the way they manage their stock, particularly in the light of the debates we have had over the course of the past few months. The landlord can, as the noble Baroness recognised, already buy back a property from a right-to-buy purchaser if it so wishes and if it seems a reasonable and justifiable use of its resources. In deciding whether to buy back, the landlord must consider the financial implications. This must be right.
By contrast, the new clause would place a duty on landlords to repurchase, giving them no discretion. It provides for central government resources to be made available to enable the landlord to meet the expenditure incurred, but this would be a further call on limited public sector resources. Under our current practices, which are drawn up in consultation with

1909
local authority associations, all resources that are available for housing are allocated to individual local authorities or earmarked for programmes such as Estate Action well in advance of the beginning of the financial year. If this amendment were to become law, we would have to hold back an amount each year to meet repurchase costs.
The new clause, as the noble Baroness explained, seeks to place an annual limit on the sum of payments to be made. This is a modification of what the noble Baroness introduced. The previous amendment would have left the public purse with an open-ended commitment in respect of the properties landlords had been required to repurchase. But the new clause does not make clear how these limited resources are to be allocated. Would there be some sort of rationing and, if so, how would it work? Would it be easier for former tenants to exercise their right in some parts of the country than in others, or would certain types of cases be given priority? Who would decide? The new clause would require someone, whether the Secretary of State or landlords, to take on the invidious job of deciding which applicants for repurchase should be favoured.
Tenants who consider exercising their right to buy have an important decision to make. Home ownership confers a number of practical advantages, and many people in addition derive a satisfaction from the knowledge that the roofs over their heads are their own. But transferring from renting to owning also means coming out of a relatively sheltered system. Home owners who want to move must either sell their home on the open market or let it. Anyone who has sold a home will know that it is not a simple mechanical process: a bargain has to be struck. It has been particularly difficult in recent times because demand has been slack.
The new clause seeks to insulate former public sector tenants from the uncomfortable discipline of the market place by allowing them to sell back to their former landlord. I do not think that would be right. It would be imprudent for tenants to buy their homes in reliance on the landlord bailing them out in the future, because when the time came there might be no money available for this purpose.
I do not suppose that I have given a satisfactory reply to the noble Baroness, but I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suppose that I thank the Minister for that reply, but I found some of the language and phraseology quite extraordinary. First, he makes the point which he made at Committee stage that the Government rely on negotiations with the building societies to prevent such families becoming homeless and therefore having to go into temporary accommodation or bed and breakfast accommodation. That includes all the social strain which results for families and children.
All the evidence may be that the building societies are more willing to roll up mortgage debt. All that does is to add to the problem of negative equity and merely postpones the problem to a later date; that is,
1910
unless the Government are hoping that price inflation will again hit the country so that their problems will be resolved in a great inflationary spiral.
Secondly, the Minister makes the point that he does not see how the allocations would be made; whether it would be by the Secretary of State. He produced a list of rhetorical questions. It will be done in exactly the same way as with all other matters of detail. Housing allocations are made in consultation with the local authority associations. I see no problem. That is only one aspect of the whole round of budgetary and financial considerations which are regularly under negotiation, as surely the Minister knows. So there is no departure there.
Thirdly, the Minister says that he does not see why former council tenants should be protected—I do not know who drafted the phrase—"from the uncomfortable discipline of the market place". In devising schemes which push the most marginal people into owner-occupation and then, for many, deny the lifeboat of housing benefit schemes which they would have received if their situation had worsened when they were tenants, the Government must take responsibility for the results. Today we see around us what has happened as a result of pressing people into owner-occupation during the 1980s, with the subsequent housing crisis and domestic stresses and strains that have resulted. The Minister should not walk lightly away and attribute to the: "uncomfortable discipline of the market place" the results, which were predictable and were predicted by us, of his own Government's policies.
Here we are trying to put in safety nets for a small number of people who will come unstuck. We say now that they will come unstuck because the Minister is unwilling to allow us to help them and give them a way back in which they could keep their homes or revert back to being tenants. There is no difference between us in principle. The Minister accepts that. It is simply a matter of resources and at nil cost to the public purse we seek the resources to enable that help to be given.
I have to say shame on the Minister for exposing potentially vulnerable families, in his phrase which will come back to haunt him, to "the uncomfortable discipline of the market place". Now we know from the Minister's own words what exposure to owner-occupation is intended to mean to former council tenants—the discipline of the market place. Given that there is such a gap between us, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 15: [Schedule inserted after Schedule 6 to the Housing Act 1985]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 230, line 29, at end insert:
("(6) References in this Schedule to the secure tenant's successors in title do not include references to any person entitled to a legal charge having priority to the mortgage required by section 151 B (mortgage for securing redemption of landlord's share) or any person whose title derives from such a charge.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this technical amendment is to protect the position of mortgage lenders who finance the purchase under the rents-to-mortgages scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 184A:
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause:
("Tenants of housing associations
.Sections 143 to 155 of the 1985 Act shall not apply where the secure tenant is a tenant of a registered housing association.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams. It seeks to exclude tenants of registered housing associations from the rents-to-mortgages scheme. Charitable housing associations are so exempt, but some of the largest housing associations are not registered as charitable, such as the North Housing Association and the North British Housing Association, each of which has about 20,000 properties. Because they are not charitable does not mean that they are therefore commercial. All registered housing associations are prevented from making a profit; all have their fair rents set by the rent officer. But unlike charitable housing, to some extent the associations have seen their stock eaten away by the right to buy. Therefore, like local authorities, they have experienced growing waiting lists for dwindling stock.
Increasingly, as the Housing Corporation has experienced cut-backs which it has passed on to housing associations, the housing associations have to turn to the private financial market to make up the shortfall in funds. However, their capacity to do so is obviously determined by their asset base and the right to buy and now these proposals under the Bill would diminish the asset base on which they can raise new finance.
Thus, this amendment, which seeks to include registered housing associations which are not registered as charities but are nevertheless not commercial organisations, comes with the support of the National Federation of Housing Associations. It also has the active support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which believes that it is inappropriate that the social housing provided by registered housing associations should be lost to the rented stock. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we have dealt with this subject before. I support the noble Baroness. My name is on the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, since the new clause is concerned with a particular group of housing association tenants, it may be helpful to recall that before January 1989 the majority of tenants of registered housing associations were secure tenants. They had the right to buy provided that they were not tenants of charitable housing associations, trusts or housing associations which had never received public funding. There are now less than 150,000 secure housing association tenancies with the right to buy.
1912
Since January 1989 new lettings by housing associations have normally been on assured tenancies. Such tenancies do not have the right to buy.
Secure tenants of publicly funded non-charitable housing associations have the same rights under the right to buy as secure tenants of local authorities, including the right to buy on shared ownership terms if they cannot afford to buy outright. Rents-to-mortgages is an extension of the right to buy which will supersede the right to shared ownership which the Bill repeals. Secure tenants of housing associations who have the right to buy will naturally expect to have the right to acquire on rent-to-mortgage terms. I do not see how we can defend treating them differently from secure tenants of local authorities. It would be seen as unfair.
It has been suggested that sales under rents-to-mortgages will be financially disadvantageous for housing associations. The immediate capital receipt will indeed be lower than for a sale under the right to buy. But in the long run the total receipt is likely to be greater. That is because the former landlord is entitled to a further payment on disposal or death. Such payments will attract a discount, but only of 20 per cent., which is less than the right-to-buy rate.
It has also been suggested that sales under rents-to-mortgages will replace those under the right to buy and so reduce receipts in the short term. The evidence indicates the reverse; namely, that they will be additional to the right to buy. In the pilot schemes in Basildon and Milton Keynes a number of tenants who made inquiries about rents-to-mortgages went on to make applications under the right to buy. But there was no evidence of right-to-buy applicants transferring to rents-to-mortgages. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I entirely take the point of the Minister that the pass was sold very unwisely by government when they allowed non-charitable but registered housing associations to be exposed to the right to buy and all the subsequent problems. Certainly some of the arguments that we have heard tonight about the problems of rural housing have confirmed the folly of that original decision by Ministers. I was trying here to protect our housing associations from an infliction of still more folly by the Minister which will go on to reduce still further the amount of social housing available for rent. But I expect and appreciate that there are not the numbers here to give support to the amendment that might otherwise be the case. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 [The rent to loan scheme]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 135, line 8, leave out ("73D(1)") and insert ("73D").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 190 to 194, and Amendment No. 198. This group of amendments seeks to clarify the circumstances in which the deferred financial commitment in a rent to

1913
loan sale has had to be repaid to the landlord who originally sold the house. There will be cases where to require repayment of the deferred financial commitment on the death of the purchaser could put surviving spouses, other relatives or joint purchasers in the position of having to sell the house in order to repay the DFC. The new Section 73D therefore protects people in that potentially very vulnerable position by providing that the DFC need not be repaid on the death of the purchaser if someone has been living there for 12 months succeeds to the house or if a joint purchaser leaves his share to other joint purchasers who have been living there. In those circumstances the DFC need not be repaid until the survivor sells it, or himself dies.
Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 are designed to deal with, say, the case of where two people succeed to the house but only one of them is resident. Similarly, Amendment No. 192 deals with a case where a joint purchaser dies and does not leave his share of the house to his fellow joint purchasers.
Amendments Nos. 194 and 198 are consequential, making changes to the definition of "rent to loan purchaser". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 135, line 31, after ("but") insert ("immediately").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 186, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 187 to 189. This group of amendments clarifies the ranking of the deferred financial commitment element of the purchase price and certain advances made by recognised lending institutions for the purchase or improvement of the house. The amendments are technical in nature and do not represent any change in policy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 187 to 189:
Page 135, line 36, leave out second ("or").
Page 135, line 37, at end add ("; or (iii) for any combination of those purposes,").
Page 135, line 45, at end insert (";
references to interest payable under a standard security are references both to present and future interest payable thereunder including interest which has accrued or may accrue; and
references to expenses and outlays include interest thereon.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 190 to 194:
Page 137, line 3, after ("whom") insert ("or persons for whom or for one or more of whom").
Page 137, line 5, after ("his") insert ("or their").
Page 137, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert (",at the time of the death, the house was the only or principal home of the survivor or the survivors or one or more of them").
Page 137, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert ("the person or persons acquiring it, succeeding to it or surviving in the circumstances whereby subsection (1) applies or on the death of such person or of the last of them for whom the house was, both at the time of such acquisition, succession or survival and at the time of his death, his only or principal home; and").
Page 137, leave out lines 26 to 31.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 185, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 190 to 194. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131 [Rent to loan scheme: related amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 138, line 26, leave out ("paragraph") and insert (" "; and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 195 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 196, 197, 199 and 200. This group of amendments is intended to clarify the circumstances in which the purchase price abatement provisions in Clause 132 apply to the rent to loan scheme. As currently drafted, the Bill does not make as clear as it might that the purchase price abatement provisions would apply if the landlord failed to serve an amended offer under Section 63(3). The Bill does not specify the timescale within which an amended offer is to be served, and that could be interpreted as being within the original two-month period. That could clearly be unfair to landlords in circumstances where, for example, the tenant informs the landlord on the last day of that two-month period that he wishes to pay more than the minimum initial capital payment. This group of amendments therefore makes it clear what is to happen in those circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 make the necessary changes to Clause 132 to ensure that the purchase price abatement provisions apply. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197:
Page 139, line 5, after ("shall") insert (", before the end of the period specified in subsection (2) or, if later, the expiry of one month from the date when the landlord was so informed of the tenant's intention,").
Page 139, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) In section 71—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) in paragraph (a), after "offer", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted "or amended offer";

(ii) in paragraph (d), after "offer" there shall be inserted "or amended offer" and there shall be added at the end "and, in the case of an amended offer, they do not conform with the requirements of section 63(3)"; and

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (b), after "offer" there shall be inserted "or amended offer"; and

(ii) after "63(2)" there shall be inserted "(and, in the case of an amended offer, under section 63(3))" ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 139, line 20, leave out from ("or") to ("that") in line 22 and insert ("where section 73D(l) applies, the person whose selling or otherwise disposing of the house or whose death is, by virtue of subsection (2) of that section, the occasion for payment of the deferred financial commitment").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 132 [Abatement of purchase price]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 199 and 200:
Page 139, line 46, at end insert ("or, where an amended offer to sell falls to be served on the tenant under subsection (3) of section 63, has failed to do so within the time limit specified in that subsection ").
Page 140, line 13, after ("offer") insert ("or amended offer").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 in speaking to Amendments Nos. 185 and 195. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 201 to 204:
Page 140, line 46, leave out ("within") and insert ("either during or after").
Page 141, line 9, leave out ("earliest") and insert ("earlier"). Page 141, line 12, at end insert ("or").
Page 141, line 15, leave out from ("sale") to end of line 18.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 201 I shall speak also to the lengthy Amendments Nos. 202, 203 and 204. This group of amendments involves purely technical changes to the purchase price abatement provisions of the Bill which provide for the purchase price to be offset by rent paid when a right-to-buy sale is unreasonably delayed by the landlord. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 201 to 204 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 134 [Right to have repairs carried out]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 143, line 8, at end insert:
("(f) the landlord may set off against any compensation payable under the regulations any sums owed to it by the tenant.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment enables the Secretary of State, in making regulations under the right to repair scheme, to allow the landlord to set off any payments of compensation against any outstanding sums owed to it by the tenant.
The enabling power for the right to repair scheme provides for regulations to require landlords to make compensation payments to tenants when their usual contractor fails to complete a repair within a prescribed maximum time. Where the tenant is in arrears with his rent there are strong arguments in favour of not making cash payments to tenants and using any credit to help to meet their debts to the landlord.
Additionally, since the payments of compensation will generally be small and may in some cases exceed the cost of making the payment itself, it will be more cost-effective for the authority to credit the tenant's rent account.
This is a small but sensible amendment. I understand that it is one which is already in place for England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not earlier than 7.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Bill
7.1 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Given my previous ministerial and government responsibilities for shipping matters, it probably comes as no surprise to your Lordships that I am particularly pleased to introduce the Bill to this House. I should first like to congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Hertfordshire South-West, Mr. Richard Page, on having successfully steered this Bill through another place. I now bring it before your Lordships' House for approval.
At first blush the Bill looks formidable, but not for the first time appearances are deceptive. Like all good ideas, the underlying aims of the Bill are simple. Essentially it seeks: to unify control of ship registration in the United Kingdom under a registrar general who will be appointed by and be responsible to the Secretary of State; to move the detailed ship registration law from primary to secondary legislation; to make provision for bareboat chartering onto the UK register; and to pave the way for the long overdue consolidation of merchant shipping legislation.
It would be a mistake for anyone to think that this measure was drafted in a vacuum and without regard to real need. It has as its genesis some of the recommendations of the working party which, during the course of 1990 under the joint chairmanship of the then Secretary of State for Transport and the then President of the General Council of British Shipping (now my noble friends Lord Parkinson and Lord Sterling), considered the most appropriate non-fiscal means of assisting the future development of the British flag.
The concepts covered in this Bill therefore take account not only of present requirements but, so far as one is able to plan ahead, future needs also. At the present time merchant ship registration is undertaken by HM Customs and Excise at some 14 regional centres up and down the country. The procedures applied are in line with the precepts laid down by our predecessors in the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act. It is a tribute to their foresight that the system that they fashioned 100 years ago has survived the passage of time. It would be pleasant to think that what we are doing today will similarly survive the next 100 years. But I doubt it. Whether we like it or not, technological and political developments nowadays sometimes force us to make rapid changes. That pressure is more likely to accelerate than to diminish in the years ahead.

1917
Thus, when moving toward unification of overall control of ship registration as proposed in Clause 1 of the Bill, the opportunity will be taken to bring merchant shipping registration into line with the computerised system already in place with the Fishing Vessel Register established under the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act and currently being put in place for the Small Ships Register which was established under the 1983 Merchant Shipping Act.
I would not expect such a modest reordering of the system of registration itself to bring in its wake massive benefits. Nevertheless, I expect improvements to flow from this development. The degree of uniformity in administration will be welcome to those who need to use the registers. The intended process of periodic re-registration of merchant ships should also enable a more accurate register to be kept, which is an essential requirement for all whose livelihood is connected with our merchant fleet.
However, I hasten to explain that it is not the intention to computerise all records. Only those relating to ships still operating will be embraced by the new technology. Therefore, the huge leather-bound volumes recording the fortunes of merchant ships of the past—the famous, the not so famous and even occasionally, but only very occasionally, the infamous —will be preserved for posterity.
I am all too well aware that not only this House but Parliament as a whole takes its responsibilities seriously. That is no more evident than in relation to matters of new domestic law. It is unfortunate that the pressures of time, coupled with the needs of modern government, do not permit us the luxury of fully debating on the Floor of this House all the new measures required to meet the needs of modern society. That is a fact of life which we have to face and to which we must adapt or be disadvantaged.
Like its sister industry, aviation, a good deal of British shipping is concerned with international trade. But unlike aviation, shipping has a much longer history. Consequently, it is still working with the legislative system that it has inherited from the past. I mentioned earlier that the provisions of the 1894 Merchant Shipping Act still applied to merchant ship registration. But even that Act was a consolidation of previous merchant shipping legislation. In fact I understand that there have been 33 Merchant Shipping Acts since 1894.
There is a limit to how long we can expect a modern industry to operate in that way. Changes sometimes need to be made rapidly to respond to commercial and political pressures. British aviation has prospered under a system whereby the detail of day-to-day regulation is found not in primary legislation but in secondary legislation. This Bill proposes to treat shipping in the same way as its younger sibling. I fully support that.
Many noble Lords who spoke in the debate initiated a few weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, rightly paid tribute to the reputation of the British flag. The noble Lord has asked me to say that he is sorry not to be able to be in the House this evening but he wishes the Bill well.
1918
Many noble Lords may be surprised that as of today there is no avenue by which a British shipowner can charter a ship to meet a temporary need and operate it under the British flag. The reason is simple. That facility, known as either demise chartering or bareboat chartering, is not currently provided for in our legislation. That is despite the fact that it is widely used by many of our maritime competitors. Leasing is a facility that is used from time to time in the aviation industry. Many consider that it would be a useful adjunct in the shipping industry too. Accordingly, the Bill makes provision for bareboat chartering-in to the UK register.
Before your Lordships express misgivings about the move, I hasten to assure noble Lords that such ships, whatever the length of the charter period, will have to comply with the requirements of UK shipping regulation as it applies to ships which have their primary registration under the red ensign. There will be no exceptions to that requirement. I know that my noble friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping has made it clear—no doubt he will wish to repeat it this evening—that 'the Government will countenance no dilution of present standards. There is nothing in this Bill which has or is intended to have that effect.
Since the last consolidation of merchant shipping legislation in 1894 and despite the many pressures on Parliament in the interim, time has nonetheless been found to enact many measures relating to various aspects of merchant shipping. The moment has therefore now come to consider a fresh consolidation. This is the final thrust of this Bill. As noble Lords will see from the schedules, it is long overdue.
I began my introduction by describing the Bill as a simple measure. I end my comments by reinforcing that thought. I know that merchant shipping arouses the interest of many Members of this House. The comments made in the debate some three weeks ago bear witness to that. I do not wish to understate the importance of the Bill, but it is not intended to address all the concerns of the industry. It is a sharply focused measure concerned substantively only with ship registration. This can easily be confirmed by a quick glance through the clauses.
Of the 10 clauses in the Bill the first six replace the existing legislative provisions relating to registration of ships, while the seventh expands the scope of registration to embrace bareboat charters.
Clause 1 creates a central register under the overall control of the registrar general and provides that a register may, as necessary, be subdivided. Clause 2 sets out the criteria for entitlement to register a British ship and identifies those circumstances in which registration may be refused or revoked.
Clause 3 provides for the making and laying of regulations in connection with ship registration. Clause 4 identifies offences relating to a ship's British connection. Clause 5 restates those supplementary provisions currently in Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 relating to fishing vessels. Clause 6, together with Schedule 1, sets out the private law provisions (for instance, law on mortgages) for registered ships. Clause 7 contains an entirely new provision which allows ships registered elsewhere to

1919
be bareboat chartered and temporarily registered under the Red Ensign by those persons qualified to register British ships.
Clauses 8 to 10 contain supplementary and pre-consolidation provisions. Clause 8 introduces Schedules 2 to 5, which deal respectively with amendments consequential on the Act (Clause 2); what is a British ship and with a British flag (Clause 3); with amendments to facilitate or are otherwise desirable in connection with consolidation (Schedule 4) and with repeals (Schedule 5). Clause 9 contains details of interpretation. Finally, Clause 10 makes the necessary provisions for citation, commencement and extent. I would point out that notes on clauses will, I hope, be available shortly.
The Bill is very much a technical measure. It is a measure which both sides of the industry want. It is a measure which has rightly attracted cross-party support in Parliament and I am pleased to see that the Labour Party's 1993–94 Parliamentary Strategy, when referring to its document Full Steam Ahead, says that it will press for the implementation of the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill.
Everyone that I have spoken to is keen to see it in place as soon as possible. I therefore have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: My Lords, I understand that the British shipping industry welcomes this legislation because of its acceptance on to the British register of foreign-owned tonnage that is bareboat chartered to a British company. That will undoubtedly make it possible for some tonnage to appear on the British register that otherwise would not have done so.
However, the legislation does not recognise the importance of maintaining London as a maritime centre of the world. It takes no account of the complex web of shipping services that exist in this country, in spite of our national flag merchant fleet having declined to 33rd in world ranking. The Government appear to believe that all those services will continue to prosper without encouragement. That is not so.
This legislation could provide some much needed impetus to the maritime services industries if the bareboat provision in Clause 7 were extended to additionally incorporate vessels managed by a British company. In this country, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, we have some of the largest ship management companies in the world. More often than not, once the physical management is secured in this country, the commercial management follows suit.
Bringing new business to the United Kingdom requires imaginative and flexible thinking. We must surely be ready to provide a home for the 26 million or so tonnes deadweight of Hong Kong tonnage that is likely to be seeking one after 1997. At the time of the recent debate on the merchant navy in your Lordships' House attention was drawn to the call from the Baltic Exchange—of which I am a member —for a British open register for just that purpose.
1920
Such a register would be without any restrictions and would, we believe, bring untold benefit to all of our many maritime service industries.
The suggestion of the inclusion of British managed tonnage is only a step half-way towards the open register; but at least it would be a step in the right direction and bring some immediate benefit to the service sector of the industry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, can consider such an amendment to the Bill.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for the balanced explanation of the Bill that he proffered to the House, and for being prepared to carry it through the House. I welcomed also his comforting words in regard to the attitude of the Government, which will no doubt be confirmed by the Minister, regarding the provisions for ensuring that there is no dilution of standards by reason of the incorporation of bareboat chartering in the provisions of the Bill.
However, it is fair to add that this Bill was substantially improved by a number of amendments that were tabled quite late in the day by Mr. Richard Page on behalf of the Government, and also by the perseverance of my honourable friend Joan Walley, in particular in dealing with the question of the register of British ships being available for inspection and, most particularly, for removing, eventually with the support of Mr. Page and the Committee, the original Clause 8 which dealt with British ships bareboat chartered out to foreign charterers. That exclusion from the Bill was certainly worth while.
Other amendments were also dealt with. But this is not truly a Private Member's Bill; it is a government Bill. I say at the outset that I make no criticism whatever of the noble Lord or of Mr. Richard Page for accepting the responsibility for introducing and carrying the Bill through Parliament, but it is an example of thoroughly bad parliamentary management on the part of the Government. For that the Government's business managers, rather than departmental Ministers, are seriously at fault, though this has happened before in connection with the Department of Transport. In the last Session of Parliament I had reason to complain about a government Bill being carried through the House in this way. It may be that the department should exercise a little more clout in seeking to ensure that there is a place for its legislation.
The fact of the matter—the Minister knows it well —is that there was ample time for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill in the proper way. They could have introduced it in this House. It is not a controversial measure in party political terms and we were not exactly overwhelmed with business earlier in the Session. I want to know from the Minister why that choice was not taken.
It is objectionable that this course should be followed in view of all the constraints on debates that take place when we have a Bill dealt with in this way —no fault of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, at all. The Bill is not as simple as he chose to suggest. The

1921
trouble is that it is complex and is exposed to all the opaque procedures that affect Private Member's Bills. Time becomes of the essence. Because of its significance in principle—the noble Lord did not go to town in stressing how important it was as the Minister did in another place on 12th May, to which I shall allude later on—the choice that lies before the House is either to scrutinise the Bill properly, deploying all the proper procedures with the risk that we may lose the Bill altogether, or to substantially constrain the duty of this House as well as another place to scrutinise the legislation properly. Then, to add insult to injury, I am sure that the Government would have no hesitation in casting blame for the loss of the Bill if the Opposition and perhaps other noble Lords were to opt to ensure that Parliament did its job properly.
Therefore we have a Catch 22 position. The result was no Second Reading in another place. That was not simply my complaint or the complaint of Opposition Members in another place. It was a complaint made by one of the Government's own Back-Benchers, Mr. David Harris, the Member of Parliament for St. Ives, and can be seen very plainly at col. 4 of the Hansard report of the Committee stage proceedings in another place. In addition, substantial amendments were introduced by the promoter very late in the day and clearly at the instigation of the Department of Transport. It appears from that that the department had not done its job properly. No blame attaches to Mr. Richard Page in that regard. There was also a truncated Committee stage, because the Committees in another place dealing with Bills of this kind meet only on a Wednesday morning. Furthermore, there was no Report stage.
If we in this place attempted, and attempted successfully, to amend the Bill I understand that we would be told that the Bill would be lost as it would have to go back to another place for further scrutiny and there is no time for that. Perhaps the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will confirm that that is a correct view. That is a situation which ought never to occur, particularly when we are dealing with matters of considerable significance to our merchant fleet. For this situation the Government's business managers are wholly responsible.
Nevertheless, I want to make it clear that, despite this difficulty, I believe that the Bill is susceptible of amendment. I would be prepared, provided the Minister. is prepared himself tonight to give far more precise undertakings about certain issues than have been given in another place, to forgo the need for a Committee and Report stage for the Bill. I would ask him to be precise about this. What I am particularly concerned with is legislation to ratify IMO conventions, in particular the convention of 1989 dealing with salvage. I ask him to give a clear undertaking that the provision will be forthcoming early in the next Session of Parliament and that, if necessary, the Government will at the same time incorporate other IMO conventions which are ripe for legislation.
I believe that I am offering the Minister a fair deal. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, smiles ruefully. I cannot see anything wrong with that. The
1922
Government say that the legislation is ready but that they have not had time for it. Well, they certainly have time in the next Session of Parliament. This ought not to be done by way of Private Members' Bills. If the Minister says, "Very well. I am not prepared to give that undertaking. I am not prepared to go further than the Minister dealing with the matter in another place did when he said that the matter would be dealt with at the earliest opportunity". I want to be fair to the Minister. It was Mr. Steven Norris, who said:
"I hope that you will allow me to give the hon. Members for Midlothian and for Stoke-on-Trent, North an undertaking that we shall seek an early legislative opportunity to incorporate the terms of the convention".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 31/3/93; col. 91.]
That is not specific enough. We want the Government to be tied down to this matter.
It is important. I am sure that the Minister would not in any way countenance the view that the ILO conventions to which I have referred are unimportant. The Minister in another place has said that it is only because of the lack of legislative time that they have not been brought forward. There it is. If the Minister is not disposed to go that way, then I say categorically that I must do my duty on behalf of the Opposition and ensure that the matter is debated in Committee. If need be I will ensure that the matter is brought forward.
There is no doubt that the Bill is susceptible of amendment. I have been given that assurance in this House by the powers that be who help us to adjudicate on these matters. That being the case, I believe that the Minister should give proper attention to the matter. It is within his right to say that he rejects my proposition entirely and that he is not interested in entering into anything more specific than what Mr. Norris was prepared to say in another place. I am equally entitled to ensure that the Bill is properly considered and that a proper amendment to this effect is given attention to.
If I may say so with respect to Mr. Page, his response to an amendment to that effect—Amendment No. 37 as it was —was somewhat misleading, although I am sure not deliberately. He suggested that the incorporation of the requirement that the amendment in question would have had would diminish standards applying to the British fleet. That is wrong. The amendment would have enabled the registrar to take the issues affecting adherence to the conventions into account before the due legal processes dealing with ratification would have been complete. I cannot see how that would diminish standards. Indeed, I believe that the reverse is the case. But there are other amendments that I would have wished to introduce which I am certainly prepared to forego if the Minister is prepared to recognise that what I am seeking to do is perfectly fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was right in saying that the Bill arose from the joint report of the General Council of British Shipping, as it then was, and the Department of Transport entitled British Shipping: Challenges and Opportunities. It was a valuable document. It would have been even more valuable if the GCBS and the Department of Transport had been prepared to enable the shipping trade unions to enter into those deliberations. They

1923
are important bodies which have always exercised a considerable degree of responsibility. NUMAST would have been more than anxious to make a contribution. There are also bodies representing the fishermen which might have been taken into account. However, I do not want to diminish the importance of the document.
The changes envisaged in the Bill are to be welcomed. I do not want to see the Bill lost. Furthermore, it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, introduced a note of proportionality into the debate. It was quite absurd for Mr. Anthony Nelson, representing the Treasury, in speaking on the Finance (No.2) Bill on 12th May, to say that this was a very important Bill which would come before the House of Lords. It is important, but it is not that important. It certainly will not rescue the British fleet from its appalling predicament.
That view was taken very strongly by Mr. Peter Luff, a Conservative Back-Bencher, speaking in the Committee stage on the Bill on 31st March. He said:
"I share the regret of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North that the Budget did not do more to assist the British shipping industry … as long as other measures are not forthcoming, the Bill presents the only opportunity that hon. Members have to help the British shipping industry and safeguard employment in that industry. The bareboat chartering in and chartering out provisions are little more than sticking plaster solutions to a fundamental injury that has been suffered by the British merchant fleet".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 31/3/93; col. 84.]
That pretty well sums it up. The British merchant fleet is dying and it needs more than sticking plaster to put it together. While the Bill is to be welcomed, it is no substitute for a coherent shipping policy on the part of the Government which has been singularly lacking over the past 14 years.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on introducing the Bill—which he has already explained was originally introduced in another place by my honourable friend Richard Page, the Member for Hertfordshire, South West—and on arranging for its Second Reading in this House today.
My noble friend is, of course, fully seized of the importance of the Bill to our shipping industry, having himself served as both Minister for Shipping and, more recently, as government spokesman on shipping matters in this House when he was Minister for Aviation. I am sure that your Lordships will see that this in itself is an excellent recommendation for the Bill which he is now taking forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, criticised the Bill for being a Private Member's Bill. That is up to the business managers. The Bill is undoubtedly widely welcomed within the shipping industry, and this is an excellent opportunity to get a useful piece of legislation on to the statute book if the noble Lord will permit it so to do.
The noble Lord also complained about the lack of discussion. It is worth bearing in mind that more time
1924
has already been spent discussing this Bill than some European Community countries spent debating the whole of their Maastricht legislation.
I know also that your Lordships care greatly for matters maritime and especially for the health of our merchant navy, as evidenced by the wide-ranging debate initiated three weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. The House will have been sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did not take part in that debate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not know whether that was a genuine note of apology or a snide remark, but, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well, I was not able to be here and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, dealt with the matter perfectly well on behalf of the Opposition.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that his noble friend Lord Carmichael did exceedingly well on behalf of the Opposition. I look forward to discussing transport matters with him more often. That does not alter the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was missed.
In that debate, I paid tribute to the contribution that the merchant navy makes both to the economy and to our defence and praised it for being efficient, well-managed and innovative. More importantly, I explained that the Government's goal is to create the framework in which British shipping can continue to develop into the competitive industry that we all recognise is so vital to the nation.
To a large extent, the creation of a symmetrical framework can be achieved only on an international scale. For example, as I have said before, the Government are committed to ensuring that British shipping is able to operate in free and fair competition with foreign vessels by rolling back the state aids and subsidies offered by other countries which serve to distort the competitive balance.
I noted again what the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, with his great experience, said with regard to the open register. I can reassure him that his point was noted originally when he spoke in the important debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I noted it again tonight and will discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Similarly, we are also working with our international partners to encourage high operational standards in shipping worldwide with the aim of reducing unfair competition from substandard vessels which, by failing to meet IMO-agreed safety standards, are able to undercut those that do comply. This will reduce the cost differential between flags with high standards, such as our own, and those flags with a less distinguished record in this field.
However, although these are very important aims and although success in increasing competition in the international arena will be of considerable benefit to British shipping, there are certain narrower domestic measures which can and should be taken to help improve the efficient working of our shipping

1925
industry. The Bill which my noble friend Lord Brabazon has introduced today represents one such measure.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that my noble friend has spoken most lucidly about the purpose of the Bill —both what it does and why it is necessary. My noble friend was right to emphasise the straightforward and technical nature of the measure and the fact that the shipping industry itself was partly responsible for recommending the speeding-up and simplification of registration procedures which will be effected by enactment of the measures. I am sure that the House will agree that, where possible, we should respect the needs of the industry in these challenging times.
Again, I can confirm to the House that it is not a question of altering and lowering the safety standards; quite the reverse. My noble friend was right when forecasting that I would wish to repeat that the Government will countenance no dilution of present standards. Indeed, given your Lordships' understandable anxiety about shipping safety, expressed most recently in the debate to which I have referred, I should like to add my assurance to that already given by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. I feel that it is necessary to underline here that the same safety standards will apply to all vessels operating under the UK flag, regardless of whether they are owned by the operator or are used by him under a bareboat charter.
My noble friend conveyed the desirability to both industry and government of introducing flexibility into ship registration requirements. I am sure that your Lordships will also see the value of tidying up and paving the way for consolidation of shipping law dating back over a hundred years.
I shall now turn to the offer that I could not refuse put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He described it as a fair deal. I think others may have a different term for it. I shall certainly not do a deal with the noble Lord over the Floor of the House. That would be totally wrong and contrary to the procedures of this place where such negotiations are undertaken by the business managers.
However, on the subject of the ratification of the salvage convention, the noble Lord is second to me in his keenness to ratify the convention. We are extremely anxious that this and other measures should be ratified. It cannot be dealt with as Private Member's legislation because, as it involves ratification of an international treaty, it can only be submitted as a government Bill. However, I reiterate to the noble Lord the commitment given in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Norris that we shall seek to bring forward legislation to allow ratification of the salvage convention at the earliest possible opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, cannot expect me to pre-empt the Queen's Speech or to go further than that tonight pr on another occasion. I simply reiterate that it is extremely important that we proceed with the ratification of the salvage convention and we shall seek an early opportunity to introduce appropriate legislation.
Returning to the Bill before us now, I hope that all Members of the House will lend their full support to
1926
it. It is a small but important measure. Certainly, those who are involved with the future of British shipping cannot do anything but give it a speedy passage and fair wind.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, his enthusiasm for the Bill as regards bareboat chartering and his evident desire to see the Bill go further than it does. From the flavour of the debate that he has heard, including the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, he will realise that it would be difficult to include such measures as he proposes—for example, an open register—in a Private Member's Bill. I am certain that, if the Government were to take that course, it would have to be a government Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will endorse that remark.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind words about the Bill. He was critical of the fact that it is a Private Member's Bill. That is largely a matter for another place and for my honourable friend who won a place in the ballot and chose this piece of legislation. I can only reiterate that I am pleased to be able to bring it before your Lordships. I can tell the noble Lord, having consulted the Commons Committee Hansard, that the Bill had a total of six-and-a-half hours' debate in Committee, which is not a bad record for a Bill such as this. The noble Lord must concede that it has had a fair airing.
The noble Lord asked my noble friend to make a firm commitment on the ratification of the salvage convention. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with what my noble friend said. I was interested to hear my noble friend say that, because it involved the ratification of an international treaty, we could not include it in a Private Member's Bill. Perhaps that answers a point in any case.
I do not claim nor did I claim in my opening remarks, that the Bill will rescue the British fleet, to use the phrase used, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but I hope that it will go some way to helping the British merchant fleet. For that reason I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Housing and Urban Development Bill
7.39 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 206:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause:
Right to information
(".After subsection (2) of section 104 of the 1985 Act (provision of information about tenancies) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3) A local authority which is the landlord under a secure tenancy shall supply the tenant, at least once in every relevant year, with a copy of such information relating to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) (b) and (c) as was last published by it; and in this subsection

1927
'relevant year' means any period of twelve months beginning with an anniversary of the date of such publication." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will serve the very worthwhile purpose of ensuring that local authority secure tenants are regularly kept informed of their rights, particularly of their right to buy. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, can the Minister please tell us who expects to pay for this?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if local authorities are obliged to provide the information, then it is up to them to pay for it. However, we should keep this in perspective. Local authorities contact their tenants regularly (and certainly annually), so it is not very difficult for them to include a notice under this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Right to compensation for improvements]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 144, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert:
("(4) Regulations under this section may provide that—
(a) any compensation payable shall be—

(i) determined by the landlord in such manner and taking into account such matters as may be prescribed; or

(ii) calculated in such manner and taking into account such matters as may be prescribed

and shall not exceed such amount, if any, as may be prescribed; and
(b) the landlord may set off against any compensation payable under this section any sums owed to it by the qualifying person or persons.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment makes changes to the scheme in Clause 135 under which secure tenants of specified landlords will have a right to receive compensation from their landlord, once their tenancy ends, for certain home improvements which they have made to their homes.
We consider that the amendment will significantly improve the operation of the scheme, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 208:
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
Right to information
(". After section 75 of the 1987 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Duty of local authority landlord to provide information about right to buy.
75A.—(1) A landlord which is one of those mentioned in section 61(2) (a) (i) or (ii) shall supply each of its secure tenants at least once every year with information about his right to purchase his house under this Part.
(2) The information supplied under subsection (1) shall be in such form as the landlord considers best suited to explain in simple terms and so far as it considers appropriate the right referred to in that subsection."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has the same effect for Scotland as Amendment No. 206, which was moved so eloquently and at such length by my noble friend, has for
1928
England and Wales. I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, that in Scotland similarly we expect the cost of this to be de minimis. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord care to tell us what costs he expects there to be?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I indicated, very small indeed because, as my noble friend has said, it is expected that such information will be included with other information that is sent out to tenants.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [New rights with respect to such disposals]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 117, line 23, at end insert:
(" 'common parts', in relation to a building containing two or more flats, means any parts of the building which the tenants of the flats are entitled under the terms of their tenancies to use in common with each other;").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 209, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 210 and 211.
These amendments are technical and, in particular, clarify the way in which HATs may dispose of flats in blocks subject to secure tenancies where only a part of the block is owned by the HAT. They in no way affect the right of tenants to become tenants of the local authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 210 and 211:
Page 117, line 27, leave out ("each of the flats in which") and insert ("in the case of which each flat which is let on a secure tenancy").
Page 117, line 28, at end insert:
("(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, a building which contains—

(a) one or more flats which are let, or available for letting, on secure tenancies by the housing action trust concerned, and

(b) one or more flats which are not so let or so available, shall be treated as if it were two separate buildings, the one containing the flat or flats mentioned in paragraph (a) above and the other containing the flat or flats mentioned in paragraph (b) above and any common parts.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 114 [Provision of housing welfare services]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 117, line 44, at end insert:
("(4) The powers conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (powers to incur expenditure for purposes not authorised by any other enactment) and accordingly the reference to any other enactment in subsection (1) (a) of that section shall not include a reference to this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 114 would give local housing authorities the power to provide welfare services for their own tenants. It has been welcomed for that. However, as it stands, it might inadvertently have the effect of preventing housing authorities from providing certain services for people in the private sector, perhaps most notably community alarm schemes. In the interests of those

1929
people who rely on such services we are pleased to remove any uncertainty over this. For these reasons, I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Provision of housing welfare services]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 145, line 39, at end insert:
("(5) The powers conferred by this section shall not be regarded as restricting those conferred by section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (power to incur expenditure for purposes not otherwise authorised) and accordingly the reference in subsection (1) of that section to any other enactment shall not include a reference to this section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to the Scottish provisions parallels the amendment which your Lordships have just made to the English provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 118 [Consultation with respect to management agreements]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 213—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is it not Amendment No. 213A?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon; I mean Amendment No. 213A.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 213A:
Page 119, line 29, at beginning insert:
("( ) Where a local authority propose to invite offers to enter into a management agreement, whether or not as a consequence of any order under Section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 (`the 1988 Act'), the authority shall make such arrangements as they consider appropriate to enable the tenants of the houses to which the proposal relates

(a) to be informed of the following details of the proposal, namely—

(i) the terms of the agreement (including in particular the standards of service to be required under the agreement),

(ii) the criteria on which the authority propose to rely in deciding from whom to invite officers, and

(b) to make known to the authority within a specified period their views as to the proposal; and the authority shall, before making any invitation, consider any representations made to them in accordance with those arrangements.

(A1) Where, in consequence of an invitation by them, a local housing authority receive an offer or offers to enter into a management agreement, the authority shall make such arrangements as they consider appropriate to enable the tenants of the houses to which any offer relates—

(a) to be informed of following matters, namely—

(i) the identity of each person from whom an offer has been received, and

(ii) such details of each offer as the authority consider appropriate, and

(iii) the criteria on which the authority propose to rely in deciding among the offers, and

(b) to make known to the authority within a specified period their views as to those matters; and the authority shall, before deciding among the offers, consider any representations made to them in accordance with those arrangements.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I appreciated that Amendment No. 213 had been moved and did not want to speak to the Scottish amendments.
A noble Lord: My Lords, why not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I shall tell the noble Lord privately afterwards. I recognise that the law of trespass in Scotland is rather different from the law of trespass in England.
In moving Amendment No. 213A, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 213B, which also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. Although I should like to speak only briefly, I feel that I must do so because this is a very different amendment from Amendment No. 160B, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel when he spelled out the reasons why tenants in both private and public sectors should be able to choose their managers. Nor do I want this evening—particularly at this late hour —to go into detail again as regards the hesitations and reservations of the local authorities and all the tenants' associations about compulsory competitive tendering. We spelled out some of those arguments at length in Committee and it may be that we shall return to them at a subsequent stage.
Turning to the amendments, what is missing from the Bill as currently drafted is any duty on the local authority to consult tenants during the process of inviting and choosing among managing agents, whether the process of compulsory competitive tendering is voluntary, as in the cases of Brent, Westminster, Wandsworth and Rutland, or is done as an extension of CCT to housing.
Both the Minister in another place and the Minister in this House at Committee stage made much of the point that tenants are involved in the consultation at every stage of the process. This amendment seeks to indicate that there are still considerable areas of concern, which vitally affect tenants, on which at the moment they will not be consulted. If the Minister means what he and his noble friends profess to mean —and I am sure that he does—then I am sure that the noble Lord will want to accept this amendment.
We are proposing, therefore, that we should extend the very welcome words of the Minister about consultation with tenants to the tendering process in rather greater detail so that we turn what would otherwise be empty words into something more realistic and more likely to be delivered. We are suggesting in the amendment that tenants should be involved in the tendering process at two main stages. The first is at the point at which local authorities are inviting contractors to tender. Authorities have fairly wide discretion as to which contractors they may invite to go on to the shortlist, so to speak, subject only to the provision that there must be at least three private contractors over and beyond the DSO. Surely, it would be right for tenants to be consulted on the proposed terms of the management agreement and on the criteria which determine which contractors shall make up the shortlist. Clearly, the criteria or the terms of reference of the management agreement crucially affect tenants' well-being, and the individual

1931
contractors themselves may or may not come with a track record above which the tenants may have concern. They may be foreign companies or companies with no connection with the area. As we know, they may be companies with a record of poor performance elsewhere. Surely the tenants have a right to be involved in drawing up that shortlist.
I turn now to the second point at which we think that tenants might reasonably be involved. Once the tenders are received, the tenants should have the right to be informed of the identity of the contractors—I think that we have already agreed that—and of the criteria to be employed by the selecting committee in determining who is selected. I hope that we have come some way from saying that the criteria should merely focus on who is the cheapest, whatever the quality of service offered. It is important for the tenants (who are going to pay the bill for all of this) that they should know precisely how quality offsets cheapness—in other words, that they can assess inputs versus outputs and not, as happens too often with CCT, be required merely to go for the cheapest on the grounds that anything else is anti-competitive behaviour.
Turning now to the associated amendment, Amendment No. 213B, Clause 118 as drafted means that the local authority need only "consider any representations" made by tenants in choosing the winning contract. The amendment would require local authorities fully to take tenants' views into account. It provides, in other words, that where the majority of tenants are opposed to the chosen contractor, the local authority should not proceed with that management agreement. I would expect such occasions to be fairly rare. The provisions are needed because, although a local authority may believe that the contractor is acceptable—given that it is offsetting quality against cost—at the end of the day the tenants will pay for it, and those to whom the management agreement belongs should be allowed the right to have the final say.
The Minister may say that the amendments are unnecessary as the management agreement is limited and strategic policy and so forth are in the hands of the local authorities, which are directly accessible to tenants. So tenants' existing rights are adequate and there is no need to maintain their right of veto which the Government have sought consistently to abolish but which your Lordships' House retained in the face of the Government's attempts to do so in 1985-86 and which it would be good if it could retain today.
If the Minister were to advance that argument tonight he would be confusing a service agreement with a management agreement. With a management agreement, I agree that there is little problem about tenant control of what is going on because tenants can require a local authority to alter the terms of a service agreement. We are talking about a management agreement rather than a service agreement. A management agreement allows the agent discretion when carrying out the services. Those services, as we explored in Committee, may be highly sensitive. They may include, for example, the collection of rent arrears. The way in which rent arrears are collected
1932
and pursued, especially when there is a suggestion of payment by results, can be sensitive. That is especially so when dealing with single parent families, unemployed families and the like, where welfare and debt counselling may be needed—something which hardheaded capitalist contractors will not necessarily want to provide.
After all, as the Minister accepted in Committee, housing management affects intimately the daily lives of not just the person at work but of all members of the household. Those same tenants—not the Minister, not me and not the local authority—are paying for those services. If the Minister meant what he said when he talked about consulting tenants, then tenants who pay should say. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendments. Here we have two contrasting amendments. The first amendment would be largely positive in its effects but the second one, I am afraid to say, would be largely negative.
The first amendment increases the number of issues on which tenants must be consulted when an authority is proposing to enter into a management agreement. I am sympathetic to the intentions here. The authority must consult on the criteria upon which it will be relying in deciding from whom to invite tenders, and when it has received the tenders it must consult tenants on the identities of the tenderers, appropriate details of their bids and the criteria upon which the authority proposes to rely when deciding among the offers.
However, the amendment has some drawbacks. I believe that, if an authority is to consult on the criteria which it will use in deciding between tenderers, it should do so in advance, before the tenders are received. That would ensure that the criteria are objective and based upon the best interests of the housing service and are not merely a reaction to the tenders. The amendment also repeats, but does not replace, the requirements which are already in the Bill, which I believe could only cause confusion. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand therefore why we cannot accept the amendment. However, as I have said, we are sympathetic to these proposals in general and it was in order that tenant consultation could be extended to a wide range of questions such as this that we have included the regulation-making power in new Section 27A(1) (a) (iii). I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 213B brings up once again what is perhaps the most misunderstood element of the new Section 27A. That concerns the removal by the Bill of the requirement upon the Secretary of State to withhold his approval of a housing management delegation if it appears to him that a majority of tenants of the area to which the agreement relates do not wish it to proceed. I understand fully the concerns that many have expressed about this proposal, but many of those concerns were expressed before the Bill was published and the Government's proposals for enhanced tenant consultation requirements were made available.
We need to keep in mind the new environment in which housing management agreements are now being

1933
sought. We are now operating in an environment where full tenant consultation should be the norm; in an environment where tenants are increasingly involved and in many cases seeking to manage their homes. Local authorities are constantly looking for new ways to deliver services and looking to the private sector to help them with that. Those developments are all good for housing management and, above all, good for tenants, many of whom are now enjoying the benefits of improved and more cost-effective services.
The Government have always believed that full and effective consultation with tenants should be an integral part of the preparation for management agreements, but those consultation arrangements must be designed to fit the times in which they will be working. Thus the argument in favour of a tenants' veto was introduced at a time when delegations were voluntary and some form of balancing check was required to secure the best interests of tenants and the taxpayer.
Under the new regime, tenants will have rights to consultation on the terms of management agreements, including those resulting from CCT. Local authorities will have to consult tenants, in particular, on the standards of service proposed; that is, the specification for the delegation. The authority has to consider the tenants' representations before it can make any decisions on the terms; that is, before it can invite tenders. That is a much more valuable time to be consulted than provided for in the current legislation. The tenants will also be consulted on the monitoring of the contractor's ongoing performance. That is why we believe that it is right and safe to replace the tenants' veto. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness not to move the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I note the Minister's reply which seemed to suggest that he had sympathy with the first amendment but does not think that it is necessary and objects to the second amendment altogether as being out of temper with the times. As I understand the Minister's reply to the first amendment, he is saying that local authorities consult tenants before they draw up a short list but may not consult them afterwards; that they may consult tenants before they choose the contractor but not afterwards. Why should not we have both? Following the Minister's line of argument, why should we not extend tenants' rights so that at the preliminary stage, when drawing up the specification for the terms of the agreement, they should be consulted and when drawing up the short list against which that is measured they should also be consulted?
The Minister has accepted that tenants are consulted before the local authority goes through to the contractor, but when there is a deemed contractor, that should also be put to council tenants. Will the Minister, with the leave of the House, explain why he is not willing to give those additional rights of consultation to tenants as he has already suggested that he is so much in favour of consulting them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, earlier I was chastised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for asking him questions at Report stage. I should not want to go against his advice.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if that reply came from anyone other than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I would have thought that it was a duck-out or an opt-out because the notes had not come quickly enough from the Box. I am sure that that is not the case.
I move on to the second amendment, noting that the Minister is unable to answer the point, which is that tenants may have some rights of consultation but not others; and the Minister does not understand why they should have some and not others, but refuses, or fails, to respond. We note that for a later stage perhaps. In reply to the second amendment the Minister says that it is no longer necessary or appropriate and the time is not right—I am sorry that the notes have come from the Box so late—for tenants to have the right of veto over the final choice of contractor.
In Part I of the Bill, at point after point, and against the Minister's own Back-Benchers, noble Lords on this side of the House have supported the Government in extending to leaseholders the right to chose who should manage their property, to extend and to enfranchise. That is a full extension of rights. If one is affluent enough to be able to buy, one obtains an extension of rights. If one is not affluent enough to buy but remains as a renting tenant, one does not merely not obtain an extension of rights but one's existing rights—the right of veto to a change of manager —are taken away.
Do noble Lords opposite feel comfortable in extending the rights of those who are financially privileged while taking away virtually identical rights from those not financially privileged, who remain as council tenants, but who nonetheless have to pick up the management bill? That is what the Minister is saying. The whole of the Government's philosophy as set out in the Citizen's Charter has been to position individuals as rights-bearing citizens. That is what the amendment would do. If the Minister rejects it, he is saying that leaseholders have rights, landlords have rights, freeholders have rights, Churches have rights, housing associations have rights, everyone but tenants has rights. And why not? Because they rent; they are not affluent; they are not seeking to buy.
I cannot help feeling that that is part of the Government's continuing vendetta against council tenants. They are not adding to their rights. They are taking away one of the most important rights they currently possess, which is the right to determine who manages their estates. That comes very odd from a government who extend rights in the first part of the Bill but take away exactly those rights in the second part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 213E not moved.]
8 p.m.
Clause 120 [Management agreements with tenant management organisations]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 122, line 34, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these technical amendments to Clause 120 make specific provision for local authority participation in tenant management organisations and disapply Section 33 of the Local Government Act 1988 where the right-to-manage procedures of Clause 120 have been followed.
The provisions of Clause 120 underline the Government's firm commitment to encourage and facilitate tenant management in parallel with the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management. Current tenant management practice evidences a healthy diversity. Many tenant management organisations opt to manage their estates entirely on their own with management boards or committees made up entirely of tenants. However, a minority of existing TMOs have invited council representatives to serve on their boards of management and other developing TMOs wish to do so.
Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 simply make specific provision for the continuance of the practice within the new right-to-manage framework, which Clause 120 will put into place. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 215 to 218:
Page 122, line 37, at end insert ("and
(d) for enabling the authority, if invited to do so by the organisation concerned, to nominate one or more persons to be directors or other officers of any tenant management organisation with whom the authority have entered into, or propose to enter into, a management agreement.").
Page 123, line 13, leave out ("and").
Page 123, line 16, at end insert ("and
(iii) in the case of an organisation which is associated with the authority, the provisions of section 33 of the Local Government Act 1988 (restrictions on contracts with local authority companies).").
Page 123, line 20, at end insert:
("'associated' shall be construed in accordance with section 33 of the Local Government Act 1988;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 124 [Levy on disposals]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 129, line 19, leave out ("the levy") and insert ("any levy under this section").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 220. These are technical amendments. The first is purely a drafting amendment. The second allows the Secretary of State to recover more easily levy from any authority which does not follow the procedures set out in the disposals levy administration determinations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 129, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) Any amounts by way of levy or interest which are not paid to the Secretary of State as required by the arrangements mentioned in subsection (5) shall be recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 221:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
Defective dwellings: damages for landlord's failure to notify
(". After subsection (3) of section 299 of the 1987 Act (jurisdiction of sheriff) there shall be added the following subsections—
"(4) Where damages are awarded in proceedings commenced before 1st December 1994 which arise out of a failure on the part of the public sector authority to give a person acquiring a relevant interest in a dwelling notice in writing under section 291, the amount of damages for the purposes of this subsection shall be equal to the difference between—

(a) the market value of the dwelling assessed as if it were not a defective dwelling and were available for sale on the open market with vacant possession; and

(b) the market value of the dwelling assessed as a defective dwelling and as if available for sale on the open market with vacant possession.

(5) Subsection (4) applies in relation to proceedings which arise out of a failure by the authority before the coming into force of section (Defective dwellings: damages for landlord's failure to notify) of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 as it does to proceedings which arise out of a failure by the authority after that date." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment introduces a clause which makes a small but significant change to legislation relating to defective houses in Scotland, in particular in relation to the level of damages awarded in actions against a local authority which fails to warn purchasers of a defect in a house. It arises out of a point well made on Report in another place by the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, Mr. Archie Kirkwood.
I shall be happy to expand on the matter but since the Scottish colleagues of the noble Lord opposite are absent I shall not do so unless the House wishes a full explanation. As the House wishes to hear a full explanation I am content to give that.
The housing defects legislation provides assistance to house owners who bought certain types of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses from local authorities before it was generally known that they had inherent structural defects. The legislation imposes a statutory duty on the local authorities to assist such purchases but that assistance is restricted to those who bought before 26th April 1984 or, in certain circumstances, in the 12 months thereafter.
From April 1984 local authorities should have been aware of the defects. In that situation they were under a duty under Section 291 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to tell purchasers of any such defect in a house which they were buying. If the local authority failed to do so and the purchaser bought a defective house, the purchaser can sue the local authority for damages for the resulting loss.
Under the legislation as it stands there is however a problem. Noble Lords will recall that under the right-to-buy legislation tenants purchase their houses

1937
at a discount. Taking entirely notional figures a tenant may pay, for example, £10,000 for a house which will sell on the open market for £15,000. It follows therefore that if the purchaser buys a defect-free house for a price of £10,000 he will have a house worth £15,000. However, if the tenant purchaser buys his house for £10,000 but it turns out to be defective it might be worth only £2,000 on the market.
As the law stands, if the purchaser sues the local authority for failing to warn him of the defects he will receive as damages only the difference between the price that he paid —that is £10,000—and the value of the defective house —that is £2,000—which will be a measure of damages of £8,000. The point is that he will receive no compensation for the fact that if the house had not been defective it would have been worth £15,000.
The amendment corrects the position. The purchaser will be entitled to the difference between what would have been the market value of the house without the defects and its actual market value in the defective condition. As regards the example that I gave, with the amendment in place the purchaser will be entitled to the difference between the market value without a defect—that is £15,000—and the market value of the defective house—in the example that I gave it was £2,000—so he will be entitled to £13,000 as opposed to £8,000 to which he is entitled under the existing state of the law.
The purchaser is thus put into the position in which he would have been had he bought a sound house. That is right in principle and the amendment helps to remove what is perceived as a potential injustice. Your Lordships will notice that the provision applies even where a local authority's failure to warn occurred before the Bill comes into force as an Act. To that extent it is retrospective. But, having considered the matter, I believe that in all the circumstances it is a proper amendment to our law.
Your Lordships will also notice that the provision applies only to proceedings begun before 1st December 1994. That limitation was inserted to conform with the general pattern under the existing legislation in which the duty of local authorities to assist purchasers will cease on that date also. It seems correct that this special provision for purchasers—for that is what it is—should stop at the same time. Those affected should be in a position to bring any necessary proceedings by that date. In England and Wales the matter is dealt with satisfactorily in another way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the amendment. The fact that none of my colleagues from Scotland is here does not mean that the Opposition Front Bench is vacant in any way any more than it means that if there is no Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench the Government are vacant. Therefore, I should be grateful if we could deal on that basis.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I apologise for having been absent at the beginning of the explanation of the amendment. Has there been any consultation with CoSLA about the matter and if so what is its
1938
reaction? Experience in England is that dealing with such defects is highly complex, highly emotional and potentially extremely expensive. This is an extraordinarily difficult issue. I speak from experience of an authority in which we inherited housing stock which had been sold but which had considerable defects. Satisfying those who have bought property who feel that they are in a different position from tenants is a real problem, as is the question of paying for it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. There was no consultation but I should explain that the particular problem relates to a relatively small number of houses because, as your Lordships will appreciate, the point arises only where a local authority fails to inform the tenants of defects of which that local authority should have, at that time, been aware. In other words, it is at a stage when the defects were already well known. Therefore, the usual practice would have been for the local authorities to make known those defects to purchasers in accordance with their statutory duty. We are dealing with a small number of cases only, although they are cases in which there is a potential difficulty for the purchaser.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143 [Other amendments of 1987 Act]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 149, line 16, leave out from ("to") to end of line 31 and insert ("any previous discount, or the aggregate of any previous discounts, received by the appropriate person on any previous purchase of a house by any of these persons from a landlord who is a person specified in subsection (11) of section 61 or prescribed in an order made under that subsection, reduced by any amount of such previous discount recovered by such a landlord.";
(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—"(a) the "appropriate person" is whoever of—

(i) the tenant; or

(ii) the tenant's spouse if living with him at the date of service of the application to purchase; or

(iii) a deceased spouse if living with the tenant at the time of death; or

(iv) any joint tenant who is a joint purchaser of the house,

has the longer or longest such occupation;" and

(ii) at the end there shall be inserted—

"and, for the purposes of subsection (3A), the

"appropriate person" is any of the persons mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) of paragraph (a)." ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to correct a potentially unfair anomaly between the existing right-to-buy provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the new provisions on deduction of previous discount in the Bill. It brings into line the list of persons whose public sector tenancies count for discount purposes and the list of persons whose previous discount is to be deducted. It uses one list, instead of two, for both purposes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144 [The Agency]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 222ZA:
Page 149, line 43, leave out ("for the purpose of exercising") and insert ("which shall include persons with experience of local authorities and which shall exercise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 224. At this point we move on to discuss the Urban Regeneration Agency. Scottish noble Lords opposite will no doubt wish to go home.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a disgraceful slur upon my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, who has been extremely helpful throughout the course of the Bill in explaining some complicated legal issues to the House.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise. I meant no slur on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who has been assiduous in explaining all kinds of amendments to the House, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. I see that both noble and learned Lords are going home, so I shall address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who remain on the Government Front Bench.
It is rather sad that we are dealing with the URA right at the end of a rather long and complicated Report stage. I believe that on Second Reading I foreshadowed that by saying that this Bill is three Bills in one. I should have preferred the URA to be the object of separate legislation because it is an extremely important issue. It is a pity that we are dealing with it at a late hour on the third day of our considerations on Report.
In moving the amendment I wish to emphasise that it is our view that something more than ministerial assurances are necessary if we are to be satisfied that the URA should, could and must work together with local authorities. We have received assurances that there is nothing to that effect on the face of the Bill. I turn now to Amendment No. 222ZA. We have absolutely no assurances that the members of the agency will have any experience of local authority activity. Indeed, as I said on Second Reading, it looks to us as though there will be a chairman who is widely respected for all kinds of reasons—namely, the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester—and five other people who will be chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and the Secretary of State and who will probably be Tory businessmen.
That does not satisfy us. We must make sure in some way or other that local authorities are properly represented on the agency. That is the thrust of the two amendments to which I am speaking.
The first amendment is quite simple. It says that the agency:
"shall include persons with experience of local authorities".
That is a very gentle amendment. Amendment No. 224 is slightly fiercer and demands that:
"not less than two shall at the time of their appointment to be an elected member of a local authority in England".
For those of us who value local democracy, it is sad that the Government seem from time to time to be
1940
proud to say that they are prepared to override local democracy and create agencies—quangos as we used to call them and, indeed, we call them that again—which will take development planning powers—which my noble friend Lady Hollis will speak to in a few moments—but whose members have no experience of local authority planning, local needs and what are the procedures and essential characteristics of the environment with which they will have to deal.
I hope that even at this late stage the Government will have some second or perhaps third thoughts on the issue because we believe that it is not enough to have ministerial assurances that the URA will work with local authorities. We have those assurances but as the Minister knows full well, ministerial assurances in this House or in another place are not worth anything when it comes to the courts. When it comes to the courts, what matters is what is on the face of the Bill. Therefore, it seems to us important that these provisions should be written on the face of the Bill because we distrust—and I say this with due consideration of my words—the attitude of the present Government towards local authorities. If the URA is to work at all, we believe that it should work in the concept of City Challenge, in the sense of being with local authorities rather than being able to override them. A condition of that would be that members of the agency should be at least in part representative of the local authority interest. In that spirit, I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I cannot let the moment pass without putting on record, as I am sure your Lordships will expect me to, my wholehearted support for both the amendments. We heard a great deal about partnership during the last stage of the Bill. That partnership can only be a partnership when those involved recognise one another as equals. The amendment is necessary because of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which I share—and it is a concern based on the evidence of the past few years—that central government, unhappily, does not regard local government either as its equal or, in any genuine sense of the word, as its partner.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the amendment and also to the noble Baroness for lending her support. I should like to start by saying a little about the relationship that the agency will develop with local authorities. It is a matter of some puzzlement to me that I have to spell that out. At every stage of the Bill Ministers have made clear that the agency will work in close partnership with local authorities. But at times noble Lords opposite seem to have chosen not to hear. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that it was not worth anything and that he distrusted the Government's intention.
Our original consultation paper last July said that the agency would:
"Work closely with local authorities, the voluntary sector and other bodies involved in urban renewal".
My honourable friend the Minister of State for Inner Cities said in another place:

1941
"The URA will work in conjunction with local authorities and, in most cases, will work in agreement with them because that will make the URA's job easier".
Further, the Bill itself at Clause 146 gives the agency the power to,
"act with other persons, whether in partnership or otherwise".
On Second Reading I made more references to co-operation and a spirit of partnership than the rest of the House put together. In Committee I made clear that the agency will work closely with local authorities. I do so again today. I assure the House that the Secretary of State's guidance to the agency will say that it should develop particularly close links with local authorities, always operating within the planning framework and involving local people as much as possible.
If that is not enough for the noble Lord, then I am sorry. I read his first amendment, Amendment No. 222ZA, with some interest. I wonder whether those persons with experience of local authorities would include my noble friend Lord Walker, who sometime ago was Secretary of State for the Department of Environment and, therefore, has a great deal of experience with local authorities.
It is important not to be too prescriptive. We do not believe in quotas. The agency will need to draw on a wide range of skills, including surveyors, architects, developers, financiers, industrialists, environmentalists and those with experience of the voluntary sector. Rigid rules about the composition of the board could make it impossible to bring together the right mix of skills by making it large and unwieldy.
We will not succumb to tokenism of any kind. We intend to pick board members for what they can offer, not for whom they represent. The amendments place more emphasis on the background of a board member than on the contribution that he or she can make. That is not the way to achieve an active, imaginative board. I hope that noble Lords opposite will come with the Government on that and agree with us.
I hope that what I have said about the relationship between the agency and local authorities will persuade the noble Lord that the amendments are unnecessary and that they should, therefore, be withdrawn. It is a matter of some sadness to me that noble Lords opposite should wish to put so much faith in local authorities all the time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most disappointed with the Minister's response. It was not very long ago that, in response to my noble friend Lady Hollis, he said:
"This agency is a partnership. It is about working with local authorities, the private sector, voluntary organisations"—
I should point out to the House that I am actually quoting the Minister's words; indeed, he went on to say—
"and anyone else who cares to have an interest in the land in question".—[Official Report, 19/4/93; col. 1277.]
Can the Minister really be surprised that we are distrustful? Whatever his boss says and whatever he or the noble Lord, Lord Walker, (who introduced the 1974 Act which we are all now trying to undo) says, we feel that there should be proper representation of local authorities on the agency. They must work in
1942
partnership. It should not simply be people who are picked by the Secretary of State; in other words, just jobs for the boys. That is what will happen unless the Government accept the amendment. If, as I understand from the Minister, the Government do not propose to accept it, I shall have to take the opinion of the House.
8.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 222ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 47.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blease, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Gregson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hamwee, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Moyne, L.

Cadman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Caithness, E.

Norric, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnock, L.

Reay, L.

Coleraine, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Cranborne, V.

St. Davids, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffhani Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hayhoe, L.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

HoImPatrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 149, line 44, after ("functions") insert ("(not being functions of a planning authority)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, continuing to fight the good fight on behalf of local authorities, we turn to the amendments dealing with planning powers, and in particular the power on the part of the Secretary of State to make a designation order entitling the Urban Regeneration Agency to exercise planning powers.
I said a moment ago that there had been a great deal of discussion at all stages of this Bill about partnership between those who are concerned with the different functions of regeneration. At the previous stage of the Bill we talked a good deal about what regeneration involves. It involves not just land but the

1943
use of all resources, in particular human resources. The powers we are discussing are precisely directed at land.
The Minister has explained that normally the agency would have no planning powers. In a discussion on this subject—I think it was in response to an amendment of mine—the Minister said:
"There may be cases, however, where the more direct involvement of the agency—on the lines of an urban development corporation—is appropriate … In extreme circumstances co-operation—"
by that I think he was referring to co-operation on the part of the local authority—
"may not be forthcoming… but we have a duty to guard against the possibility".
By "we" the Minister meant the Government. The Minister objected to the amendment he was discussing as he believed it would mean that a local authority could veto designation, no matter how badly it was needed. He continued:
"A short-sighted local authority should not be able to deprive local communities of the agency's help".—[Official Report, 19/4/93; col. 1346.]
One can in some cases draw an analogy between urban development corporations and the Urban Regeneration Agency. Too many urban development corporations do not carry the confidence of residents in their areas. On the previous occasion when we debated this matter, noble Lords mentioned the London Docklands Development Corporation. I must accept that there were references to successful urban development corporations but, by and large, in those cases a large number of their members were also members of the corresponding local authorities.
I accept that the designation orders are a long stop to achieve what the Government want over the head of local authorities more or less by definition. The Urban Regeneration Agency is not democratically accountable. As I have said before, the agency has a huge democratic deficit in terms of exercising planning powers. I do not believe the provisions in the Bill are necessary. The Secretary of State has the power to call in applications if there is concern in Whitehall, Marsham Street or in this building that a local authority may not have dealt appropriately with a particular planning application.
If the Urban Regeneration Agency's designation powers are to be used as a fast track to achieving planning decisions against the wishes of the local planning authority—the latter authority is part of a local authority and is accountable to and in close touch with its electors—on the basis that the end, which is regeneration, justifies the means of achieving it, I believe such means must call into doubt the end. I do not believe that regeneration that is achieved through the use of such powers, over the head of the local community, is valid.
I realise I am painting an extreme picture but, in the circumstances I have described, it is hollow to refer to partnership. Local communities must be at the heart of regeneration; otherwise it will not be true regeneration. I should put it on the record that I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 233B to 233E. All
1944
these amendments deal with planning powers. I believe the broad point I have made covers them all. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish to support Amendment No. 222A and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 233B to 233E, which have been so persuasively spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
In Committee this amendment was explored and it was then emphasised that over the years there had been a succession of urban initiatives which had achieved varying degrees of success. Some of those initiatives have been mentioned by the noble Baroness tonight. They range from urban programmes to UDCs, task forces, enterprise zones, estate action schemes and City Challenge. Several themes recur through the initiatives. Those themes have been bedded down in some of the latest UDCs and initiatives. The first of them is that regeneration works only if it is initiated in response to, and is responsive to, local need. That means partnership—with the local authority, local groups and other statutory agencies.
If the regeneration agency, whether it be a UDC or a task force, resists that partnership, if it is top down, if it parachutes in and then deserts, its activities and initiatives will almost certainly collapse with its withdrawal and the exercise will remain in the long term a costly and irrelevant failure. Those initiatives succeed only when they are firmly rooted. Otherwise they are dependent on the artifice of the agency that is created. If they are not so rooted they will not survive. They will only be rooted if they have the active support and partnership of the local community. That is the key lesson which we should, on all sides of the House, have learnt in respect of urban initiatives over the past 20 years. Otherwise, one is wasting one's time and wasting one's money.
I turn to the new initiative of the urban regeneration agency. Opposition Members have consistently pressed two amendments, at Committee stage and now again on Report. The first was that moved recently by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The amendment proposed that the membership of the urban regeneration agency should include a substantial local authority voice. That would not constitute a majority, but there should be a substantial local presence. The second was the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, providing that the URA should not be able to exclude itself from local planning by virtue of a designation order. Those amendments are linked by precisely that question of partnership.
At Committee stage the Minister made much of partnership. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel quoted the Minister's phrase that the essence of the URA is partnership. The Minister then proceeds to reject all the amendments that would ensure it. It remains words on a page rather than action embodied in an agency.
Indeed, in response to the previous amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, the Minister said (I paraphrase because I cannot remember his exact words and I hope that I do him no injustice) how sad it was that we on this side of the

1945
House should always be speaking up for local government and pressing its claims and that we should feel it necessary to speak on its behalf. He used words to that effect against us while talking about the need for partnership with local authorities. How does he combine those two? How can he, on the one hand, talk of partnership and then, when we remind him that partnership involves co-operation between two partners, feel that it is sad that we should need to remind him of that. The evidence is all around us in the fact that the Minister rejects our amendments.
One can achieve partnership in one of two ways. One can achieve it by co-ordinating a membership of experience on an urban regeneration agency. The Minister made much of the fact that he wants active and energetic people on the URA and not people who are selected on the basis of what they have done in the past. The point about local authority membership is precisely the experience on which those members can draw and the local connectedness to which they can refer which might make the objectives of the URA deliverable. If one does it that way, as with the new UDC in Plymouth, one ensures that the possible conflict of objectives is worked out within the URA because of the nature of membership.
Alternatively, if one rejects that approach, as the Minister has just done, then one has to do it the other way. If one does not achieve co-operation through membership one has to achieve co-operation through planning. That is the objective of our second set of amendments under which decisions made by the URA must remain harmonious with local needs as assessed by democratically elected local people.
If the Government have rejected the first option relating to the membership of the URA, it is even more important that they do not reject the second option of not allowing the URA to opt out of the planning system at planning control level. We believe that designation—the right to become one's own local planning authority—is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, neither desirable nor necessary. It is not necessary. The Scottish and Welsh development agencies, which are highly regarded and do not possess such powers, have shown that they are not essential.
If the URA should be at odds with the local authority in ways which cannot be resolved by discussion, then it has, as the noble Baroness said, the right to petition the Secretary of State to call in the plans and, above all, the right of appeal, as all major developers have. No doubt it also has access to a fast track. After all, it will be appealing to the person who appointed it—the Secretary of State. There would normally be a presumption in its favour by the Secretary of State in handling any such appeal, particularly if based on proper grounds.
That brings me to our second concern, namely that proper grounds are of the essence. The planning system ensures that decisions are made on proper public grounds. They are based on plans which have gone out for local consultation, have been formerly approved by the Secretary of State, are consistent with county structure plans and regional planning guidance and which, if there is a new major development, have
1946
been aired at a public inquiry. In other words, that is a form of planning which not only comes up from local people but is determined and scrutinised in public in a transparent manner.
The URA, as set up by the Government, will be top down. It will parachute into local communities and will inevitably be regarded by local people with some degree of suspicion, and rightly so. How much more important, therefore, that that suspicion should be allayed by the URA being seen to be operating in partnership with the local community by falling fully within the framework of local planning decisions which have been democratically arrived at and publicly approved.
At Committee stage we pressed the Minister to say when designation might occur. The Minister cheerfully said that he thought that local authorities were obstructive, unhelpful and unco-operative. We need occasionally to remind the Minister that it is part of the job of planning authorities to be obstructive and to obstruct those proposals which need to be obstructed in the public interest. Any developer refused permission by the local authority to build a large housing estate in the green belt could rightly accuse the local authority of being obstructive. But does anyone suggest that it should not be?
The Minister will no doubt say, and rightly, that the URA will conform with the local development plan. But the URA proposals we teased out at Committee stage can nonetheless have major implications for roads and traffic, housing, open space, densities, trees, and the like. URAs giving themselves planning permission, which is what this will mean, would essentially drive coaches and horses through local development plans.
If there is dispute—and dispute within the planning context may be healthy rather than destructive—then it should be resolved by open debate; in other words, by appeal, and not by one party—the URA—having the privilege of designation and therefore the right to opt out of planning control by becoming its own local planning authority. That is wrong and makes a mockery of the Government's own measure of 18 months ago, the Planning and Compensation Act. To that extent I fully support the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, noble Lords opposite have assumed that the provisions in Clauses 156 and 157 will only be used against the wishes of local authorities. However, as I explained in Committee, and as the noble Baroness reminded us, they may well be used to cement a partnership between the agency and one or more local authorities. That might be because they want the agency to take over responsibility for a particularly difficult site which would benefit from its special skills.
In other cases, a local authority with a severely derelict site close to its boundary may be unable to reach agreement with a neighbouring authority on access and servicing. The agency can help in such cases by seeking designation of the area in order to help the

1947
authority to develop the site properly. The noble Baroness offered no answer to those situations, which were raised in Committee, as she rightly pointed out.
The examples of the Birmingham and Plymouth UDCs, which I quoted in Committee, are relevant. The power to set up a UDC is very similar to the power to designate an area where the URA would have development control powers. Why should local authorities in future not have the opportunity to seek help from the URA through designation in the same way as Birmingham and Plymouth have sought a UDC?
The amendments cast aside a carefully structured system, leaving nothing in its place to allow the agency to take over responsibility for development control on severely derelict sites in urgent need of its help. They amend the basic constitution of the agency to prevent it taking on any of the functions of a planning authority. They delete altogether the designation provisions in Clauses 156 and 157.
Amendments Nos. 233D and 233E recognise the value of the highway powers that can be made available within designated areas and try to preserve them within areas specially designated by the Secretary of State. But those powers would lose much of their purpose if removed from the context of designation.
Designation is not only an important guarantee that the agency will be able to act on sites which would otherwise have remained derelict. It is also a mechanism for promoting co-operation and for building on the new spirit of partnership which I mentioned at length in Committee and which we have discussed again today.
It is no good noble Lords opposite getting into a lather about local authorities. We both seek to support local authorities. The difference is that noble Lords opposite insist that local authorities must play a part, whereas we accept that in virtually all circumstances they will play a part where that is appropriate. The amendments remove the carefully structured mechanism altogether. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am unpersuaded by the Minister. He states that the powers will allow the Urban Regeneration Agency to take over responsibility for a difficult site, or to deal with the problem where the site is on a local authority boundary. But are not those just the problems which our current planning system is designed to deal with? The Minister states that we should learn from Birmingham and Plymouth UDCs. As I understand it, those UDCs have large numbers of local authority members, with local authority members as vice-chairmen.
There is an enormous amount of ground between us. The Minister states that there is not. It is difficult to know what more to say because there is so much ground between us. Perhaps I should accept that for today the argument is put on the back burner. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 149, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) The Agency shall exercise its functions in accordance with Schedule (Public information and co-operation with local authorities, etc.) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel may be tired of the arguments on local authorities, but I rise to address the same theme again. It is the democratic deficit in the Bill.
I cannot understand how the Minister can constantly say that he is in favour of consultation and yet is unwilling to provide for it on the face of the Bill. He also makes great play of the fact that he has promised that there will be consultation and that we should believe his word and trust him. But he must know that he will not necessarily be in post in one, two, or five years, and however much we may be willing to believe him, and know that he is an honest fellow, his words will only appear in Hansard. People will not, in a year's time, refer to Hansard to see what he said, even if he is still in post. Therefore, the fact that we may believe him does not mean that anyone will abide by his suggestion that consultations will occur with local authorities.
The Minister appears to be in favour of consultation with tenants and local authorities. I cannot understand why that should not appear on the face of the Bill. The provision need not be in the form that we suggest, but surely there is no harm in providing that the Urban Regeneration Agency shall consult local authorities.
I turn specifically to Amendments Nos. 223 and 225. Amendment No. 223 paves the way for the schedule that we suggest should provide for various consultations. There are three main thrusts to the schedule. Paragraphs 1 to 3 ensure that the Urban Regeneration Agency consults local authorities and other public bodies in order to take into account the needs of local communities. It is local people who know the needs of their local community and not some urban regeneration agency which will, of necessity, be remote and have other knowledge, experience and objectives.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 ensure that the Secretary of State consults local authorities and other concerned persons. That surely would lead to better coordination, coherence and a strategic approach to regeneration of an area. Without that, one will have dislocation and people pulling against each other, being at odds and pursuing different objectives.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 ensure that the agency informs the local community both of its past actions over the past year and its future intended activities. That again is surely basic to acceptability within a community or an organisation. Let us consider the business managers about whom the Government are so keen. I have considerable experience of management and of seeking to have plans accepted. Unless people know what one plans to do, one does not have plans accepted; people will not carry them out; one does not

1949
carry people with one and they are not energised. I cannot understand why the Minister opposes the simple concepts which will make the Urban Regeneration Agency work so much more efficiently and effectively.
We have referred to other places such as the London Docklands. That is surely an example where imposed solutions did not work. The local community was extremely bitter and resentful of what was done to them. Past exhortations that the agency should consult the local authority are not sufficient. The provision needs to be on the face of the Bill. I shall be grateful if the Minister will explain why consultation is not deemed sufficiently important in relation to the Urban Regeneration Agency for the provision to be on the face of the Bill. It need not be in the form that we suggest, but surely it should be laid down somewhere in the Bill that the Urban Regeneration Agency should at the very least consult local authorities, even if the provision is in those broad terms.
Amendment No. 226 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 223 and 225. It is a further attempt to introduce some sense of democracy, accountability and openness into the Urban Regeneration Agency. When the Secretary of State extends, restricts, or varies the powers of the Urban Regeneration Agency it requires the Secretary of State at least to cause a statutory instrument to be laid before both Houses of Parliament so that it can be subject to amendment if he has exercised his powers either arbitrarily or excessively. That procedure does not take up time. Normally most such instruments pass without objection. But it is a safeguard to the democratic process, so that people may object if the Urban Regeneration Agency is allowed to take to itself further draconian powers. The amendment is a small attempt to restrain the power of the Executive and to subject it to parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment so eloquently. I understand the intention, but I have to tell the noble Baroness that I cannot support her new schedule. It does not strike the right balance between the need to inform and the need for action. It would prevent the agency from taking any action, however trivial, without first engaging in formal consultation.
I grant that consultation, formal or informal, is appropriate in some cases, but this provision goes too far.
The new schedule also requires the Secretary of State to consult on and publish any guidance issued to the agency. Let me say first of all that we must keep the status of the guidance in perspective. The agency's statutory objectives are clearly set out in the Bill. It is being set up as a statutory body accountable to the Secretary of State and through him to Parliament to achieve those objectives. The power for the Secretary of State to give guidance to which the agency must have regard is necessary to ensure that he can be properly accountable to Parliament for its policy. But the guidance must be consistent with the objects that Parliament has agreed.
1950
I explained in Committee that this guidance will not be a single document. It will be subject to revision and will need to be supplemented from time to time, often because urgent decisions are required. Some will be subject to commercial confidentiality. It would not be appropriate to launch a formal consultation exercise on all working documents of this kind.
Amendment No. 226 would require any directions issued by the Secretary of State to be made by regulation. I hope that this power will never be used but it is an important reserve power which ensures that the agency is fully accountable to the Secretary of State at all times. He is in turn accountable to Parliament for the actions of the agency and for the manner in which it spends the public resources devoted to it. It is part of the existing system of accountability and does not need to be picked out for separate parliamentary scrutiny, as this amendment attempts.
A power to give directions on a case-by-case basis is fundamentally incompatible with a requirement that directions be contained in a statutory instrument subject to parliamentary procedure. That, I suggest, is why I have been unable to find any precedents for what is proposed in the amendment.
I hope that what I have said will persuade the noble Baroness that we have the matter well in hand and that she can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am of course disappointed by the Minister's response. I had hoped to see a smidgen of movement on the Government's side, but we are banging against a brick wall tonight. Although his claim for accountability of Ministers is far too broad and we know that it is often difficult to lay accountability at people's doors, we have already explored that theme at some length this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 16 [Constitution of the Agency]: [Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Schedule 17 [Finances of the Agency]:
9 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 224A:
Page 235, line 15, at end insert:
("Financial limits
6A.—(l) The aggregate amount at any time of borrowed sums shall not exceed £200 million or such greater sum not exceeding £300 million as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "borrowed sums" means sums borrowed by the Agency under paragraph 4 minus repayments made or treated as made in respect of those sums.
(3) No order shall be made under sub-paragraph (1) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the URA's borrowing limits. Schedule 17 includes a power for the agency to borrow, although the consent of the Secretary of State and the Treasury is required in every case. I appreciate that, like any private sector developer, the agency may sometimes need to borrow to meet urgent needs or to cover

1951
short-term gaps in its cash flow. I understand that Schedule 17 gives the Secretary of State control over such borrowing. However, I find it strange that the Bill does not place a ceiling on the agency's ability to borrow in this way. There are many precedents for such a borrowing limit in other legislation. The case for a limit is that Parliament should approve the total amount of liabilities that the agency enters into at the taxpayers' expense. It needs to approve grant in aid through the normal estimates procedure, but at present the Bill does not require Parliament to approve or even to be aware of any borrowing limit.
My amendment, which introduces a limit of £200 million extensible to £300 million by order of another place, is based upon the urban development corporation model. It is unexceptional and well precedented and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing this matter to the attention of the House. He is right to point out that there is no overall control on the totality of URA borrowing. The concept of such an overall limit is precedented in other similar legislation relating to urban development corporations.
I do not wish to give the House any less control over the agency than over these similar bodies. I congratulate my noble friend for spotting this omission and I am therefore pleased to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Clause 153 [Guidance and directions by Secretary of State]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 225A:
Page 156, line 44, at end insert:
("(1A) The guidance given by the Secretary of State to the Agency under subsection (1) above shall be issued in draft for public consultation and shall include the following matters—

(a) the Agency's primary environmental duty and its contribution to the achievement of environmentally sustainable development;

(b) the need for the Agency to undertake an assessment of the environmental impact of its activities and to consult the public when setting its priorities;

(c) the need for the Agency to have regard to and complement the objectives of local authority development plans and the land use planning policies issued by the Secretary of State, including when considering the end-use of a reclamation site;

(d) targets for the reclamation of derelict land and guidance on the preparation of inventories of such land in conjunction with local authorities;

(e) the role of the Agency in assisting local authorities meet the requirement under sections 12, 31 and 36 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 to include policies on the improvement of the physical environment in development plans;

(f) the need for environmental criteria to be applied to any activities funded by the Agency;

and any other matter which the Secretary of State thinks fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although Amendment No. 225A is a probing amendment, I wanted to give the House an opportunity to discuss the guidance which will be issued by the Secretary of
1952
State to the URA, because it became clear during the Committee stages of the Bill that the Government's guidance will be crucial to the agency's success. At the moment, we know very little about its content or even its timetable. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten us a little this evening about the Government's intentions.
My amendment raises a number of important issues. First, it suggests that the Government's guidance should be issued in draft for public consultation. My noble friend indicated to me by letter only yesterday that the Government intend to issue some of the guidance in draft, but that they do not intend to undertake widespread consultation. However, I hope that in the course of time my noble friend will reconsider that decision. I believe that the guidance should be treated in the same way as the Government's planning guidance to local authorities and that the views of interested parties should be actively sought. For example, last year, the Government issued draft planning guidance for public consultation and amended the final guidance to include the objective of environmentally sustainable development for the planning system.
Speaking of that, my amendment stresses an approach to regeneration which seeks to achieve environmentally sustainable development. That would be consistent with the Government's stated objectives following the Earth Summit at Rio last year.
That approach may not necessarily be the quickest or the most economically attractive. It will require a long-term approach, assisted by strategic environmental assessment and, indeed, the greening of some derelict areas instead of their development with offices or houses. It will also require a close working relationship with local authorities over their development plans.
I am a little concerned that the agency will adopt too crude a measure of success. It should not just concern itself with the rate of derelict land reclamation, because that would ignore the importance of securing the most appropriate end use for sites. For example, the development of offices would have a very different impact from the development of a wildlife park. It would also ignore the important contribution of reclamation in achieving wider land use and planning objectives, such as the reduction of house building on greenfield sites.
Finally, I am keen for the agency to work towards targets set by the Secretary of State. Those would provide a useful focus for its work. Noble Lords may remember that during the Committee stage of the Bill, I drew attention to the fact that we are creating derelict land almost as quickly as we are reclaiming it. As a suggestion, therefore, we could set two targets for the end of the decade. One would be to reduce the overall area of derelict land and the other would be to reclaim derelict land at twice the rate at which it is formed.
Those are all important matters and they relate to the practical way in which the agency will operate. I

1953
look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords and also my noble friend's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I support the probing amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and I hope that the Government will issue guidance in the near future. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the timetable will be for it.
It is essential that the Urban Regeneration Agency works within a long-term strategic framework of environmental concerns, otherwise it could be driven by short-term and developmental, financial or commercial needs. It may ignore the wider aspects of the environment which will inevitably be with a locality for far longer. If the objectives which it pursues are too short-term, it may build up further dereliction for the not-too-distant future.
It is therefore essential that all development takes place within a strategy, a long-term concern in which environmental sustainability is one of the primary aspects of what the agency sets out to do.
We had a long discussion last time about the guidance that the Secretary of State might give the agency. In view of this evening's discussion, perhaps it may be possible that the guidance could include something about consultation with local authorities. Even if it is not on the face of the Bill, it might, if it were at least in the guidance, provide an enduring reference point for those concerned with the activities of the Urban Regeneration Agency. I do not think, despite the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that I have anything further to say to his detailed introduction of the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie is quite right when he says that we are returning to matters that are very important. I hope that my noble friend agrees that the undertakings I have given here today already satisfy the main purposes of the amendment. I do not, however, agree with its attempt to rewrite some of the contents of the guidance and statute.
Several of the points mentioned in the amendment will be key features of the core guidance. It will, for instance, stress the importance of carrying out environmental assessments of major projects. The guidance will also require the agency to develop particularly close links with local authorities, always operating within the planning framework and involving local people as much as possible.
I can tell noble Lords that we propose to make a draft of the central core of our guidance available in a single document. It will cover the whole range of the agency's work without being prescriptive. It will leave the agency free to establish its own priorities within its statutory objectives and the strategic goal set by the Secretary of State. Performance against targets will be measured by a clear set of performance indicators. Beyond that there will be three key themes running through the core guidance.
First, it will repeat the assurances given in this House and in another place that the agency will be required to operate whenever possible through partnerships and to develop particularly close links
1954
with the local authorities. I hope that that is the "smidgen" that the noble Baroness opposite was looking for. Secondly, the guidance will specify that the agency must always operate within the planning framework and should involve local people as much as possible in its activities. Finally, it should always be aware of the environmental implications of its activities and should carry out environmental assessments of major projects. The core guidance would be published in draft before the agency is established. At that stage comments will be welcomed. On that basis, I hope that that gives my noble friend most of what he seeks and that therefore he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could be expand a little on the timetable for the core guidance? He said that it would be published before the agency was set up (as I understand it) and that he would welcome comments on it, or welcome a debate on it. Is he implying that it will come before this House in some form or other for debate?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. I would certainly not want to give the impression that the Government expected to have another debate in this House on the guidance or the framework of the agency. Of course, if the noble Lord wants to use his own party's time to have a debate, then he will be able to do that. I wanted to make sure that there would be a public debate (in terms of the consultation) and people would be able to write in with their thoughts and ideas on the consultation process.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, again before the noble Lord sits down, could I remind him that my party has no time? The House of Lords has time. He has gone into great detail about the core guidance. Could he perhaps, while waiting for information, tell the House whether the information that he has given us will be published in some form—perhaps as an outline memorandum—in time for Third Reading?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, since we shall debate Third Reading on Tuesday—and I speak with the leave of the House—I think it would be virtually impossible for me to provide that necessary guidance before then. The point. is that we intend to establish the new agency before the end of the year, and of course we shall publish the guidance well before then.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response. It is good to hear that there will be an opportunity to comment on some of the core guidance, which I hope will be widely circulated. I am also sure that there will be a number of other issues which will be flagged up, perhaps by local authorities and environmental groups. At that stage I hope that my noble friend will consider them very carefully. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 226 not moved.]
Schedule 19 [The Agency: land]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 227:

1955
Page 241, line 31, leave out ("notwithstanding") and insert ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, Amendments Nos. 227 and 228, which amend Schedule 19 —which is in some ways one of the most disturbing aspects of this part of the Bill—would attempt to make the Urban Regeneration Agency subject to other relevant legislation in addition to the laws relating to planning when acquiring common land, open spaces or fuel or field garden allotments. It would also allow actions against the Urban Regeneration Agency if it was in breach of other legislation relating to such common land and so on.
It is important to build those additional safeguards into the Bill because many of those areas are subject to ancient laws, rights and regulations which are not covered by current planning regulations. Therefore it is important to restrain to some extent the powers of the Urban Regeneration Agency.
Common land is a public amenity that has been progressively eroded in this country since the land enclosure Acts from the 17th century onwards. Curiously enough, the Urban Regeneration Agency would appear to be a kind of mirror image of the private landlords who enclosed the land and deprived the people of their common rights. It is a mirror image in the sense that it is a public body rather than a private landlord. Nowadays we deplore many of the actions of those landlords and what they did when enclosing common land. It is sad to think that the Urban Regeneration Agency might fall into a similar degree of public displeasure through its actions. These amendments attempt to some extent to restrain what it can do in relation to very precious open parts of city landscapes.
Urban commons and open spaces are of great value to people who live in cities for recreation, exercise, aesthetic pleasure, urban farms and as green lungs which reduce air pollution. It is therefore extremely important that some restraints are placed on the Urban Regeneration Agency to prevent it from developing them. It can often be very tempting and much easier to develop such unbuilt-on and derelict sites. Easy commercial advantage and short term gains can be made rather than the Urban Regeneration Agency tackling areas of serious dereliction and decay in our city centres. This amendment is therefore intended as some slight brake on the possible activities of the Urban Regeneration Agency. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely agree with much of what the noble Baroness said. But, as I explained in Committee, the provisions of this Bill enabling the agency to acquire and work on commons, open spaces and fuel and field garden allotments, which in the interests of brevity I shall refer to as "special category land", are well precedented. Similar provisions apply also to local authorities, statutory undertakers, new towns, UDCs and HATs. I would expect the URA to undertake major work on special category land very rarely. But such land cannot be
1956
excluded completely. First of all, it may be derelict or contaminated and work may need to be done on it. Secondly, the agency may need on occasion to acquire such land in order, for example, to provide access to other sites. The crossing of a roadside verge which has been registered as common land is an example.
If the agency acquires special category land by compulsory purchase it would have to provide equally advantageous land in exchange, unless the areas involved were very small. The CPO would transfer all of the trusts, rights and incidents of the original land to the piece offered in exchange.
The provisions of Clause 148 and Schedule 19 are closely linked, and I think it would be clearest if I discuss them together. Clause 148(1) enables the agency to acquire land, including special category land, by compulsory purchase if need be. If it were to purchase such land compulsorily then Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 would apply. Subject to limited exceptions relating to road widening or drainage, or to very small areas, and unless the CPO were to go through special parliamentary procedure, the agency would have to provide land in exchange. Exchange land should be not less in area and is equally advantageous to both the public and to those with rights over the land to be acquired. So Clause 148(3) ensures that the agency has the power to acquire land for exchange. The compulsory purchase order would transfer the original rights and incidents to the exchange land, leaving the land acquired for the purposes of the agency free from those restrictions.
Having said that, I hope that I have made clear the need for the provisions in paragraph 7 in Schedule 19. There is nothing new or exceptional about them. I can understand very clearly the concerns of the noble Baroness. I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful for the sympathetic response from the Minister. He says at least that he understands some of my concerns. Obviously he feels that there are sufficient safeguards built into the Bill. I feel that there are insufficient safeguards in it. We shall not agree about that. In the circumstances I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 228A:
Page 242, line 7, at end insert:
("(1A) An order made under this paragraph shall contain a plan on a scale of not less than 1:10,000 showing the right of way to be extinguished and any right of way to be created.
(1B) The Secretary of State shall not make an order made under this paragraph extinguishing a right of way unless he is satisfied that a reasonably convenient alternative public right of way is available, or will be provided before the right of way is extinguished; and the Secretary of State shall have power to include in the order such provision as he considers necessary for the creation by the Agency of such an alternative public right of way.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 228A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 229A-229E and 233A, with which are grouped Amendments Nos. 229 and 230–233.
Despite its name, the Urban Regeneration Agency may own and work on land anywhere; it is not

1957
confined to urban areas. I have had my attention drawn to a number of points and have been asked to put forward the amendments by the Ramblers' Association. I know that the Minister shares my interest in walking—we walked about 2.5 yards together down the Thames path in January when we launched the London Walking Forum. I hope therefore that the amendments may find sympathy with him.
The Ramblers' Association is concerned to see that people living in urban areas have easy access to enjoyable walks and, of course, urban paths often have a functional purpose in allowing for short cuts avoiding traffic noise and traffic fumes.
The powers contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 19 are essentially the same as the powers applying in new towns, areas of UDCs and housing action trusts. I am told by the Ramblers' Association that its experience of the provision arises principally from the use of the powers in new towns, which it has found to be unsatisfactory and unfair to users of rights of way for two reasons. First, the provisions do not lay down any tests requiring the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the extinguishment is necessary to enable the applicant body to carry out its functions; all that is required is that the land over which the right of way runs is being held by that body. That gives members of the public little scope for arguing the merits of the case for retaining the right of way and no opportunity at all of challenging the Secretary of State's decision in the courts.
Secondly, the power is a power to extinguish only. There is no scope within the provisions for the Secretary of State to order that new rights of way be created as replacements for those which are extinguished. I understand that attempts by the Ramblers' Association to seek replacement paths have not been successful. The Secretary of State has not been willing to place an applicant body under an obligation to dedicate new rights of way at all or by any given date even when there has been a promise of replacement. It may often be the case that the land concerned is sold off to a third party and the promised replacement access cannot be provided.
Amendment No. 228A seeks, first, to require an order to be in a form prescribed by regulations and to contain a plan showing the affected rights of way. In the Bill the form of the order is left to the Secretary of State's discretion and there is no requirement for a plan to be included. The second change sought by the amendment is to impose on the Secretary of State a requirement to be satisfied that there will still be a reasonably convenient right of way available to the public after the order has been made. The amendment seeks to give him power to require the agency to provide an alternative.
Amendment No. 229A is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 229B, which requires that the draft order and plan be open to public inspection and be available for purchase. That is in line with other legislation. It also requires the agency to provide for public inspection a statement of its reasons for wanting to extinguish the right of way.
Amendment No. 229C seeks to oblige the Secretary of State to send to all local authorities concerned not just the notice but also a copy of the draft order and the agency's statement of reasons. Amendment No. 229D is a paver for Amendment No. 229E, which requires, first, that the notice, the order and statement of reasons must be served on persons prescribed by regulation. That is found in other legislation. It was first introduced in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to avoid local authorities having to advertise orders in the London Gazette.
Finally, Amendment No. 233A seeks to fill what seems to be a gap in the schedule, in that there is no requirement to tell anyone of the Secretary of State's decision on the draft order. The amendment requires similar publicity to be given to the decision to that given in the first instance to the proposal to make the order.
I hope that what is a fairly long series of amendments which perhaps look a little complicated on paper will be seen as clear and straightforward in their intention. I hope, too, that the Minister will be consulting the bodies in membership of the Rights of Way Review Committee, which is chaired by his honourable friend the Member for Tiverton, on the guidance that he proposes to give to the Urban Regeneration Agency on rights of way matters. There is clearly a great deal of detail on which the experience of bodies dealing with these issues would be very valuable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I rise to speak to the other amendments within this group. I also support those proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I am addressing specifically Amendments Nos. 229 and 230 to 233. These are further attempts to amend Schedule 19 so as to reduce some of the arbitrary powers either of the Urban Regeneration Agency or the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 229 and 233 seek to establish that there is a public inquiry before a right of way is extinguished. I should like to make a further statement about why rights of way are so important. It is not just a matter of access, exercise, and exploration but partly because of the very nature of large new developments with an urban area. They can far too easily become an island of modern development cut off from the surrounding houses and other more long-standing parts of the townscape. This alienation certainly occurred in the Isle of Dogs. I apologise for returning again to the London docklands development but it is one of the major examples that we have.
One of the things that the local community felt most bitter about were the walls that went up around these grand new buildings and the fact that access which they had long enjoyed to river frontages—I do not think that they had established rights of way but there was certainly public access to walks along the river—was suddenly cut in half by these large new developments. This embitterment and alienation can so easily occur where people have been used to travelling through a part of their local neighbourhood and suddenly find that they can no longer do so because a strange development has suddenly been put down in the middle of their familiar surroundings.

1959
This is perhaps another part of the plea we have been making about the importance of carrying the local community—the need for partnership, motivation, acceptance, consultation and working with the grain rather than against it. That is another important reason for not extinguishing the rights of way in too arbitrary a fashion. What may appear as a trivial closure to a developer may in fact be a serious disruption to the life of the community and to local people. It is for that reason that we are suggesting that there should be a public inquiry—some of the amendments suggest that—before a right of way is extinguished. The other amendments seek to restrain the Secretary of State's powers. With the Act as currently drafted he has the arbitrary power to ignore objections, which seems a strange thing to write into an Act, but that is currently there. The amendments seek to remove that arbitrary part of his decision making from him. The amendments are in support of established rights of way.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, introduced her amendments and described the day that we spent together walking by the Thames, opening the London Walking Forum. That is perhaps a measure of the Government's commitment to rights of way and to extending them throughout the country and particularly in London. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, will be delighted to know that in the development of West India Docks in London's Docklands the LDDC took down the old dock walls and opened up to local people an area which had been closed to them for generations.
Amendments Nos. 229 to 233 would require a public inquiry to be held before the Secretary of State can make an order extinguishing a right of way. An inquiry would have to be held no matter how small or unused the right of way and no matter how thorough the alternative provision made by the agency. It would have to be held even if there were no objectors.
We expect extinguishment without a suitable alternative to be exceptional. If, however, the Secretary of State is quite content that he is in full possession of all of the facts and that any alternative is fully adequate, and perhaps even an improvement, then he should be able to extinguish the old right of way without an inquiry. It would not be necessary to hold an inquiry in every case.
The remainder of the amendments in this group would extend the Secretary of State's order-making power to allow him to order a right of way to be diverted as well as extinguished. They would also allow him to order extinguishment only if a suitable alternative were available or were to be created. These provisions, which are similar to those applying to local planning and highway authorities, were designed for bodies responsible for large networks of public paths. They are not appropriate for a development body such as the agency which is working on isolated sites and has no long-term ownership or management role.
The present provisions ensure that rights of way will not be extinguished unless the interests of the
1960
users have been properly taken into account and the agency has good reason for seeking an order. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is only right for the Ramblers Association, which I freely admit has constructed these amendments, to have the opportunity to consider them and I shall not pre-empt what it has to say. However, lest the House has the impression that the Minister and I spend our time on party walks, it is only right to say that, after a swift photocall, we returned to this building for a glass of wine.
The London Walking Forum was an initiative of the Countryside Commission, the Sports Council and other bodies, including in particular the London Planning Advisory Committee, which I chair and which represents the London local authorities. The initiative came from the grass roots, if I may put it that way. We were delighted to have the Minister's endorsement, but the source of the initiative should be recognised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 233A not moved.]
Clause 156 [Power to make designation orders]:
[Amendment No. 233B not moved.]
Clause 157 [Agency as local planning authority]:
[Amendment No. 233C not moved.]
Clause 158 [Adoption of private streets]:
[Amendment No. 233D not moved.]
Clause 159 [Traffic regulation orders for private streets]:
[Amendment No. 233E not moved.]
Schedule 20 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 233F:
Page 252, line 52, at end insert:
("Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)
2A.—(1) In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments etc. subject to investigation), after the entry "Urban development corporations." there shall be inserted the following entry—
"Urban Regeneration Agency."
(2) After Note 10 of that Schedule there shall be inserted the following Note—
"11. In the case of the Urban Regeneration Agency no investigation under this Act shall be conducted in respect of any action in connection with functions in relation to town and country planning." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments No. 233G and 236D.
Many of the provisions in the Bill are, not surprisingly, similar to those setting up other sponsored bodies. I have particularly in mind the urban development corporations, new town corporations and housing action trusts. However, I have observed that there is an important safeguard which applies to all those bodies which does not apply to the Urban Regeneration Agency. All are subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the Ombudsman—or the Local Commissioner for Administration—the Local Government Ombudsman. Indeed, UDCs are subject to both.
I recognise that the agency will be responsible to Parliament through the Secretary of State who will report on, and answer for, its activities, but this does not seem to be sufficient reason for omitting it from the scrutiny of the ombudsman, particularly in view of the precedents. I have followed the urban development corporation model in tabling these amendments. They would enable the ombudsman to investigate complaints of maladministration against the agency unless the complaint concerned planning matters in a designated area. In that case, the local government ombudsman would be able to investigate. I hope that no such cases will arise, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the amendments are both beneficial and well precedented. I hope that he will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for these amendments. However, I have difficulty with the drafting of Amendment No. 233F. Subsection (2) states:
"In the case of the Urban Regeneration Agency … in respect of any action in connection with functions in relation to"
I wonder whether the noble Earl would be kind enough to withdraw his amendment and reconsider its drafting.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has done a service to the House in tabling these amendments and in explaining them so well. It is indeed the case that new town corporations, UDCs and HATs are subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration or, where more appropriate, the Commissioner for Local Administration. On that basis, although the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has spotted a potential error, I am happy with the drafting and happy to accept the amendment. If, however, on reflection we find that there is a drafting error, we can always amend the provisions on Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 233G:
Page 254, line 11, at end insert:
("Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7)
4B.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974 (authorities subject to investigation), after paragraph (be) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(bf) the Urban Regeneration Agency;".
(2) In subsection (7) of section 26 of that Act (matters subject to investigation) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(ba) where the complaint relates to the Urban Regeneration Agency, any designated area within the meaning of Part III of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993;".
(3) In Schedule 5 to that Act (matters not subject to investigation) after paragraph 7 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"8. Action taken by the Urban Regeneration Agency which is not action in connection with functions in relation to town and country planning." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 234 to 236:
Page 254, line 24, at end insert:
("National Heritage Act 1983 (c. 47)
. After subsection (2A) of section 33 of the National Heritage Act 1983 (general functions of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2B) In relation to England, the Commission may make, or join in the making of, applications under section (Applications by certain public bodies)(1) of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, and may exercise, or participate in the exercise of, any rights or powers conferred by a scheme approved on any such application.".").
Page 258, line 1, at end insert:
(" .—(1) In subsection (1) of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (general duty as respects conservation areas in exercise of planning functions), after the words "powers under" there shall be inserted the words "or by virtue of".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section there shall be added at the end "and section (Applications by certain public bodies) of the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993".").
Page 258, line 2, leave out ("the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990") and insert ("that Act").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Repeals]:
Lord Monk Bretton Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 236A:
Page 258, line 47, column 3, at end insert ("Section 124(3).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monk Bretton moved Amendment No. 236B:
Page 260, line 45, column 3, at end insert ("Section 164.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 174 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 236C:
Page 168, line 13 after ("the") insert ("Leasehold Reform,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 236C would add the words "Leashold Reform" at the beginning of the Short Title of the Bill. In moving that amendment, I am speaking also to Amendment No. 236CA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which, by way of alternative, would add "Leasehold" after the word "Housing" in the Short Title.
I moved this amendment in Committee and, after it had received wide support from all sides of the Chamber, my noble friend Lord Goschen said that he would like to take it away and think again about it. I had the impression when he rose to speak that he was disposed to advise rejection. He said that the general principle on Short Titles is that they should be just that, as short as possible.
If the addition of one word would make the Short Title short enough, I should be pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, but I prefer my amendment. My noble friend went on to say that the purpose of the Short Title is to provide a short

1963
form of reference to the Bill in other Acts and elsewhere, rather than to describe the contents of the Bill. To add "leasehold reform" to the beginning of the Short Title could not be properly described as adding to the description of the contents of the Bill. It largely describes the Bill itself.
It may still be the will of most noble Lords present that the label on the bottle should describe what is in it, although there may be many of my noble friends who would prefer not just that the Bill had a Short Title and a Long Title but a government health warning. I hope that I shall now hear from my noble friend that his considerations have led him to advise acceptance of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my amendment is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. Like him, I prefer his amendment to mine. I tabled my amendment so as to respond to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has referred. Legislation is often difficult to follow. If we can guide readers to the right statute, that may be doing them a service. In these days of computers if the Bill's title contains a word which obviously refers to the contents of the Bill, then when the user inputs the relevant term one might hope that, gremlins permitting, the output will be correct. I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when we discussed the Short Title of the Bill in Committee, I explained, as my noble friend Lord Coleraine reiterated, that the purpose of a Short Title is to be just that: as short as possible, so that it can be easily referred to in other Acts and subordinate legislation and by people who are seeking to use its provisions. "Housing" was chosen as the shortest term to cover the provisions of Parts I and II.
We have been given two alternative suggestions, both of which would make the title longer and rather more cumbersome. It is, however, the clear will of your Lordships to reflect the most substantial part of the Bill in its title. I do have sympathy with that desire. We prefer, as it would seem do your Lordships, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, which better reflects the structure of the Bill and is rather neater. I am pleased to accept that amendment, therefore, and would ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 236CA not moved.]
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 236D:
Page 168, line 38, after ("section") insert ("paragraph 2A of Schedule 20").
On Question, amendment agreed to. In the Title:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 237:
Line 2, leave out ("extend the right to enfranchisement or') and insert ("make further provision with respect to enfranchisement by").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 237A not moved.]
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 238:
Line 6, leave out ("Part III") and insert ("Parts III and IV").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Dawat-e-Hadiyah Bill formerly Dawat-e- Hadiyah (England) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Unibank Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Leeds Supertram Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 10th–11th MAY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 10th–11th MAY
  RAILWAY PENSIONS
  RAILWAY PENSIONS
  BR FREIGHT SERVICES: PRIVATISATION
  BR FREIGHT SERVICES: PRIVATISATION
  PUPILS WITH ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE: TESTING
  PUPILS WITH ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE: TESTING
  WITHDRAWAL OF PUPILS FROM TESTING : PARENTS' RESPONSIBILITIES
  WITHDRAWAL OF PUPILS FROM TESTING : PARENTS' RESPONSIBILITIES
  HUMANITIES RESEARCH: FUNDING
  HUMANITIES RESEARCH: FUNDING