Sitting of 21 October 1993

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

  UNIBANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 28 October.

  WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Health Care, Down
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to visit hospitals in the Down district of Northern Ireland to discuss health care in the district.
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from Down community health committee on matters relating to health care in Down district.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Michael Ancram): My noble Friend Lord Arran intends to carry out a visit to health and social care facilities in the Down district including the Downe hospital, in the very near future. In November last year, in response to Eastern health and social services board's acute framework document, the Down community health committee forwarded to the Department of Health and Social Services a document entitled "Save our Hospitals". In July of this year, the committee forwarded a further document called "Our Future Hospitals".
    Mr. Olner: The Minister is obviously aware of the profound concern that has been expressed in the Down area of Northern Ireland over the threat to the area's maternity and acute services. Why does the health authority insist on threatening the future of the two hospitals which provide excellent care for the local community? Is the health authority being driven by the needs of centralised finance, and not looking at the benefits provided in the community?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member will be aware that the Eastern board is currently finalising its strategy document and it would be wrong at this stage to speculate on what might be in that document. When the document has been completed, it will be forwarded to my noble Friend Lord Arran, who will give it careful consideration. That consideration will be given in the light of representations that are made to him, and also those that I will pass on to him that have been made in the House today.

    Hospital Closures
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed with members of the Eastern health and social services board the question of the closure of and reduction in hospitals in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State has had no discussions with members of the Eastern health and social services board about the provision of hospital services. My noble Friend Lord Arran keeps in regular contact with the board about the progress in the development of its strategy for acute hospital services.
    Mrs. Jackson: Further to the question he has just answered, does the Minister agree that the effect—HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] I am not reading.
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady is doing exactly the opposite of what I asked her to do, and is speculating on what might be in the report. That speculation negates the process, of which I will remind her.
    The Government set out their overall policy and objectives and, once that is done, the health and social services board is expected to respond with its own area strategy. On this occasion, the Eastern and Southern boards have chosen to supplement their area strategies with separate documents for acute hospital services. However, the consultation and approval process remains the same, and will be carried out as it always is in such circumstances.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As local people and their representatives in Northern Ireland have no say whatever in the operation of the Eastern health and social services board, will the Minister draw to that body's attention, at his next meeting with it, the fact that the population of Belfast has fallen from 400,000 to 280,000 in the past 10 years? Will he tell the board that there is now an overcapacity in the provision of hospital beds in the city of Belfast, and that we want the board to provide more hospital facilities to serve the people of the Castlereagh, Ards and North Down boroughs, which are increasing in population day by day?
    Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the board will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's words in the House today. He will understand, however, that the process will work only if the board is allowed to formulate its strategy, subject to

    373
    its own process, and bring it before the Minister. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, once that is done, the Minister will consider the strategy fully in the light of all the representations made.
    Mr. Hume: Does not the Minister agree that the real purpose of his health policy is nothing to do with improving health, and that the Government are turning hospitals into marketplaces for making a profit? Does he not agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) that services such as maternity services should be as close to the people as possible, especially in rural areas? Why does the hon. Gentleman propose to close the maternity services unit in Omagh in County Tyrone?
    Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, has not watched carefully the improvements that have been made in health service provision in Northern Ireland. Let me give him one or two figures. In the past five years, the number of patients treated in hospitals each year has increased by 41,000, or some 17 per cent. In the past two years, the number of patients waiting more than two years for treatment has decreased by 82 per cent. In the past 10 years, deaths from coronary heart disease among those under the age of 65 have fallen from 230 per 100,000 to 153 per 100,000—a drop of 33 per cent. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would sometimes talk up the health service and show the good work that it does in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister prevail on the noble Lord Arran to visit the hospitals in the Eastern health and social services board area, to talk to those who provide the services and to listen to some of their genuine concerns? We know that there is no democratic accountability in the boards, but, at present, there are local health and social services councils. Under the new arrangements, those councils will be dispensed with and there will be no opportunity for people to bring forward local interests to be acted upon. Will the Minister impress on his colleague Lord Arran that he should discuss such matters with the people who provide the services and listen to what they are saying, as that is most important?
    Mr. Ancram: I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Arran will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request. I repeat that consultation plays a full part in the process. I also repeat what I said right at the beginning—that my noble Friend intends to visit health and social care facilities in the Down district, including the Downe hospital, in the near future.

    Security
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Since my right hon. and learned Friend answered a similar question on 1 July 1993, there have been 13 deaths as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland, including 12 civilians and one soldier. The Government will continue to pursue a security policy that strives to defend the people of Northern Ireland against those who try to promote their views by violence or threat of violence.
    Mr. Townsend: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to a post for which he seems singularly well qualified. First, there have been reports during the summer recess of arms finds in Northern Ireland. Can he give the House further details? Secondly, what have the security forces done to try to improve their relationship with local people in Northern Ireland?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, ably supported by the Army, is succeeding in arresting a large number of terrorist offenders. As at 10 October this year, 283 people had been charged with terrorist-related offences, including 46 with murder or attempted murder. Moreover, large quantities of firearms, ammunition and explosives are being recovered by the operations of the RUC, so ably supported by the Army. I should further say to my hon. Friend that the relationship between the public and the RUC and the Army has never been better and is improving all the time.
    Mr. Maginnis: In view of Lady Thatcher's frank admission in her memoirs that the United Kingdom received far better intelligence co-operation from most other European countries than from the Irish republic and her conclusion that the Anglo-Irish Agreement's contribution to security was very limited, is it still the Government's intention to continue, in her words, to refrain from security policies that might alienate the Irish Republic?
    Sir John Wheeler: I speak for the Government as it is today and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the co-operation between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has never been greater. I have visited many of the border police stations and seen evidence of that co-operation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that co-operation will continue.
    Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the bomb at Cookstown courthouse in my constituency which displaced many elderly people and the recent death in our Province of another constituent of mine, the innocent Annie Bogle, because of the IRA bomb in Castlederg thrown near elderly people, what would the Minister say to my constituents are the steps that the Government intend to take to end the reign of terror that the people of Ulster have suffered for more than 20 years?
    Sir John Wheeler: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the policy of the Government is to use the resources of the RUC and the Army to the fullest extent to arrest and detain the terrorist gangs who commit those abominable crimes. In no circumstances will the Government permit any killing or crime to take place without the fullest investigation and the determined support of the forces of the Crown to prevent those outrages from recurring.
    Dr. Hendron: While I appreciate that the Provisional IRA have been the main killers in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years, will the Secretary of State make a statement about the murder gangs of the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force? Bearing in mind that almost 30 children in west and north Belfast have been left without a parent over the past few months because of those murder gangs, that thousands of Catholic people, mainly in the Belfast area and beyond, are living in fear and terror,

    375
    and that, as the House knows, the most recent victims of those murder gangs were Jody Reynolds and Patrick McMahon, will the Secretary of State make a statement?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows from our recent meeting, I take very seriously such wanton killing of individuals. No matter what the motive, it is evil, wrong and should be opposed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will do its utmost to prevent such outrages. Nine people had been charged with serious terrorist offences in the five days from 8 October.
    Lady Olga Maitland: May I seek the Minister's assurance that, despite the row over defence budgeting, not one soldier will be withdrawn from Northern Ireland and the Army will remain properly equipped?
    Sir John Wheeler: I am glad to repeat the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made it absolutely clear that the Government will continue to devote all resources necessary for security in Northern Ireland. I am glad to confirm that position today.

    Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1993
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many responses he received to the draft Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Up until 19pctober, 15 responses had been received from interested organisations and individuals. My noble Friend Lord Arran has recently extended the consultation period by eight weeks to allow all those who wish to express views on the proposal further time to do so.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the extension, for which we had asked even before this was published, but may we have a sitting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to discuss the order, which is one of the most vital to come before the House because it affects the future of many people in Northern Ireland, particularly our future generations?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is for the House authorities and principally the Leader of the House to determine whether the Northern Ireland Committee should take heed of what he has asked. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the request.

    School Curriculum
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the curriculum in use in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ancram: Northern Ireland has its own distinctive curricular framework based on areas of study. Compulsory subjects are broadly the same as in England and Wales. Arrangements are in place for ongoing monitoring and review of the curriculum, but, in response to teachers' concerns about overload, I have asked the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council to complete a detailed review of the primary curriculum by the end of April 1994.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming the admirable interim report
    376
    of Sir Ron Dearing, and does he agree that Sir Ron Dearing's concept of the need to equip our children to compete in a world of enormous job challenges from the Pacific rim and from other areas means that there will have to be new and original thinking on the curriculum? Not everything can be tackled, but changes will have to be made, and teachers, parents and children must be ready to accept them in the interests of future generations.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. He will appreciate that Sir Ron Dearing's review does not extend to Northern Ireland, but, because our systems are similar in many respects, his recommendations will be of much interest to us. I shall certainly want to take account of whatever emerges from his review in considering the best way forward in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Beggs: I welcome the announcement that the Minister made earlier this year that there will be no new programmes of study in the primary school this year, that there will be a review of the curriculum and that there will be a further pilot scheme on assessment. The Minister is establishing a reputation already as a listener, but will he assure the House that the curriculum review will be wide ranging and that account will be taken of the views of teachers, managers in education and parents so that those who ultimately have to deliver the policies that are implemented will have an input in creating those policies and will be committed to them?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. The purpose of the review is to investigate problems and concerns that have arisen in schools, especially in relation to overload. The curriculum council has issued a paper for wide circulation seeking comment on the problems encountered by teachers. It investigates the contributory factors and seeks views on solutions. There will be wide consultation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we do not want unnecessarily to prolong uncertainty. I have, therefore, asked for a report by the end of April. I hope to be able to implement some of its findings in time for next September and most of its finding for the year after.
    Mr. Rathbone: Under the review, will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient health education is included in the curriculum?
    Mr. Ancram: I will certainly take on board what my hon. Friend says.

    Inter-party Talks
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning inter-party talks.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government remain determined to promote further political dialogue towards a comprehensive settlement involving the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government and ourselves. We are engaged in private bilateral discussions, exploring the basis on which further dialogue can take place.
    Mr. Barnes: Would not talks be facilitated by moves in the Republic of Ireland to make its practices more acceptable to Protestants in Northern Ireland, and moves in Northern Ireland to make its practices more acceptable to

    377
    its Catholic minority? The Opsahl commission has made a number of proposals that may be of considerable benefit. Its report has been discussed throughout the island of Ireland, but discussed little in Britain. Will the Secretary of State ensure that it forms part of the backcloth to tomorrow's debate on Northern Ireland issues, as it may be relevant to the development of talks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will need to be more particular in his complaints about practices both north and south of the border before I can answer that part of his question. If I am lucky enough to catch the Speaker's eye, I will refer to the Opsahl report in a speech. That is how I prefer to answer the hon. Gentleman's question today.
    Sir James Kilfedder: In a recent television interview, the president of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, declared in regard to any possible settlement that the British people and the Government would have to sue for peace, and, moreover, that the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland would not have a decisive say in the future of the Province. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I generally do not comment, in the House or elsewhere, on what other people have said. However, I re-emphasise that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear in his speech at Blackpool that the Government will continue to stand behind the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. There has been much very understandable and proper talk about self-determination. Whether the present status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is confirmed or changed will depend—and depend alone—on an act of self-determination by the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. William Ross: Surely the talks that took place betwen the two Governments last year have clarified the parties' position for everyone concerned. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman go on talking about further talks when the position is absolutely clear? Is he aware that whenever the word "speculation" appears in denials, the people of Northern Ireland have learnt by bitter experience that usually the speculation is accurate? Is he further aware that the proposals made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Adams are nothing less than an IRA demand for total surrender to the violence, and the threat of further violence, from the IRA? Will the Government make it clear that they will not surrender to those demands, no matter how much blarney is wrapped around them?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have not had the advantage of a copy of the text to which the hon. Gentleman refers. At the end of the talks process on 9 November last year, all parties agreed that there was a need for further dialogue. The hon. Gentleman referred to the talks process, but it is further dialogue that everyone agreed should continue, and it is that formulation which I used in my answer. I believe that the people of the Province as a whole share the view that it is important that politicians should sit down and see whether there is any further progress to be made towards the objectives that they all signed up to as long ago as March 1991.
    I need not go further in answering the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question than to reiterate what I said to the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) a
    378
    moment ago: that the people of Northern Ireland have a basic democratic right to decide their future. The Government will continue to back the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to read, in yesterday's The Irish Times, what is purported to be the outcome of the so-called Hume-Adams initiative? Are the proposals outlined acceptable to the Secretary of State, or does he still stand by his often-repeated remark that self-determination by the people of Northern Ireland will decide the political destiny of the Province?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The latest repetition of my often-repeated remark occurred about 10 seconds ago, just before the hon. Gentleman asked his question, so naturally I stand by it. I think that it is unwise to speculate on a matter that has not been communicated to the British Government. I agree with the four church leaders who said recently, in a joint statement, that they regarded speculation as unhelpful and dangerous.
    Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State is obviously aware of the discussions taking place between my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the president of Sinn Fein, in a sincere attempt to end violence and bring peace to the north of Ireland. Will he assure the House that if there is even the slightest chance of peace, he will take the opportunity and not let it slip? Will he assure us that he, as Secretary of State, will not allow short-sighted intransigence, feigned self-righteousness or his Government's deal with the Ulster Unionists to stay in power to stand in the way of the peace that the people of the north of Ireland crave and deserve so much?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: One thing is needed to secure the peace desired by everyone in Northern Ireland—and much more widely, I may say. That is a declaration by the Provisional IRA and other terrorists—a declaration that those people mean—that the perpetration of violence is over, and over for good. It is not a question of ceasefires, with the threat of only a temporary relief. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's implication that peace in his terms—at any price—should be pursued.
    As I have said many times in the House and outside, if that message is given, and if enough time elapses for the fact that it is for real to be established in sceptical minds, we shall be at the beginning of a new phase.
    Mr. Garnier: Has my right hon. and learned Friend found the apparent embracing of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Republic by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, through the agency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), to be of any assistance whatever in the conduct of the inter-party talks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I believe that it is generally understood that there is much of a constitutional character to be discussed by the two Governments. It is as well understood by the Government of the Republic as it is by us that articles 2 and 3 have a central part to play in those discussions, and also in the discussions on all three strands with which we were concerned last year.
    I am bound to say that I thought the tone of the speech made in Cork by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull,

    379
    North (Mr. McNamara)—as it was reported—rather more supportive of no change in articles 2 and 3 than I would have expected him to be, if he was being realistic.
    Mr. McNamara: I was interested to note that the Secretary of State was able to question the tone only of a report of the speech. At his request and that of his office, a copy was sent to him yesterday. If he had read it, he would have seen it clearly stated that both articles 2 and 3 and the Government of Ireland Act 1920—which have been bones of contention between the two different communities in Northern Ireland—should be on the table for discussion.
    Talking of matters being on the table for discussion, does the Secretary of State still believe that, as a basis for the inter-party dialogues, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that it is entirely for the participants in the process to decide by what rule they should proceed. For my part, I believe that it is clear that to assemble around the table again immediately would be counter-productive; I believe that the right process now is to explore, in bilateral discussions with the other parties, how we can best take matters forward.
    I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman has retained his position, at least for this afternoon, and I hope that he will still be there tomorrow morning. I hope that he will then be able to tell us whether the recent publication of the views of some of his closest advisers on Northern Ireland represent the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition. They state:
    "We also recognise that critics will claim that our model of shared authority is undemocratic because it will initially have to be imposed against the wishes of a majority of Northern Ireland's citizens. We reply first of all that Northern Ireland, at present, is not a legitimate unit of democratic decision-making and rests on coercion."
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm whether that is his view, as a spokesman for the Opposition.

    Health Care (Down)
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the proposals for the Down group of hospitals in Downpatrick, County Down, put forward by the Eastern health and social services board; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ancram: I am aware that there is much concern about the future of the Down group of hospitals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Eastern health and social services board expects to publish its strategy on acute hospital services in the near future. That will be sent to my noble Friend Lord Arran, who will examine it carefully before deciding whether to endorse it.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply, which was perhaps inadvertently slightly disingenuous, in that the Eastern health board report is already complete and is in the Department of Health and Social Services. The Department and the Minister will make the decision de facto, not de jure. When his ministerial colleague considers that report, will he take notice of all the community concerns and uphold the effective and cost-effective general and maternity provision that is made in the Down district hospital? Will he also bear in mind the enormous economic and social consequences that an adverse decision
    380
    would engender for Down district and do his utmost to ensure that accessibility, with the group provision that we already have, will be the basis of the eventual decision?
    Mr. Ancram: I am very much aware of the importance of the Downe hospital to the people of Downpatrick and district. I am well aware of the concerns that exist there, as is my noble Friend Lord Arran. I have to say, however, that the report to which I refer—I referred to it earlier—was that by which the Eastern and Southern boards have chosen to implement their area strategies with separate documents for acute hospital services. That is not yet before my noble Friend Lord Arran. When it is, he will give it due consideration.

    Economy
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote the economy of Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): The Government are helping to strengthen the Northern Ireland economy through measures intended to make business more competitive. We are helping companies to identify and remove obstacles to growth; encouraging inward investment; building up management and work force skills; developing an enterprise culture; and supporting innovation, research and development.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in the interests of all concerned fully to support the Government's policies in Northern Ireland and that the prosperity of Northern Ireland is of vital imporance, not only to everyone in the British Isles, but to investors overseas?
    Mr. Atkins: It is important to support not only Government policies in Northern Ireland, but Government policies generally.
    My hon. Friend is right. The inward investment programme of activity has been carried out by the Industrial Development Board, supported by a variety of Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I am grateful to them, as they constituents should be, for that effort, which does so much to provide new jobs in the Province.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Although I congratulate the Minister on the foreign investment and the extra jobs that have been brought into Northern Ireland recently by him and his Department, may I ask him to set up representatives from his own Department, the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, to discuss ways of better helping local inventors and entrepreneurs? If those products were properly developed, more local jobs would be created in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the subject, which he and his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) have already drawn to my attention. It is worth recording that about 90 per cent. of IDB funds are spent on existing companies in Northern Ireland—small ones through LEDU, progressing to IDB, growing into successful companies, which have become extremely important in United Kingdom terms.

    381
    However, if there are cases that he would like me to consider, affecting his constituents or anyone else, I should be more than happy to consider them.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the privatisations of Harland and Wolff, of Short Brothers and, more recently, of Northern Ireland Electricity—which were all bitterly resisted by Opposition Members—have been extremely successful? Surely that shows that what Northern Ireland needs is not less privatisation but more.
    Mr. Atkins: The first time that I visited Northern Ireland the cranes of Harland and Wolff were absolutely static and I saw nothing happening, Shorts were struggling to find investment and other companies were in a similar position. Since privatisation, the two companies to which my hon. Friend referred have become enormously successful. Shorts recently celebrated its 85th anniversary with a massive order worth about £70 million and Harland and Wolff is going from strength to strength and is making some fine ships again—so, my hon. Friend is entirely right. The more that we can do to encourage private sector involvement in what were public sector companies, the better it will be for the economy of Northern Ireland.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the latest figures for the total number of homeless people in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that on 1 October 1993, 441 households were living in temporary accommodation secured for them under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.
    Mr. Worthington: Is it not the case that in Northern Ireland the number of people in urgent need of rehousing is increasing, that the number of people with the most urgent need—those in the A1 category—is also increasing, and that a large number of other people have been defined out of existence as homeless by Housing Executive procedures? Is it not becoming more and more difficult to get a home in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: The simple answer to almost all those questions is no. In the past 12 years, urgent housing has dropped from something like 19,000 to 10,000. The Housing Executive has a large amount of money to invest in housing of one form or another. It is with no sense of complacency that I recall for the benefit of the House that Northern Ireland does not have as great a problem as other parts of the United Kingdom. That is thanks to the sterling efforts of the Housing Executive at all levels. It is relatively easy to get a house in Northern Ireland, if the need is proved.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister review the homelessness legislation, in the light of a series of recent incidents in my constituency? A family, already believed by their neighbours on the estate to be responsible for vandalising and burning down a dozen houses to steal the fittings, last Tuesday set fire to their own house and have been rehoused by the Housing Executive, which even paid their removal expenses because it is so scared of legal actions being taken against it under the homelessness legislation that it will not
    382
    take a proper stand. Surely something should be done to ensure that the legislation not only caters for the genuinely homeless but does not let criminal elements exploit it in such a way.
    Mr. Atkins: I am greatly disturbed by what the hon. Gentleman has said about a specific case, but we cannot deal with the matter on the Floor of the House, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. If he wishes to write to me with details, or to contact my office, I shall be more than happy to ask the chairman of the Housing Executive to look into the matter.

    Military and Police Manpower
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proportion of regular troops of the British Army to full-time RUC officers currently serving in Northern Ireland; and how long he expects that proportion to remain.
    Sir John Wheeler: On 31 August 1993, there were 11,659 full-time police officers, including full-time reservists, and 14,770 members of the regular Army, including full-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment, serving in Northern Ireland. There are therefore approximately nine policemen for every 11 soldiers. Manpower levels are kept under regular review.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that the security situation in Northern Ireland gives little ground for optimism? Does he further accept that the British Army has a justifiably high reputation for counter-terrorist expertise and operations, which members of the RUC, excellent though the men and women of that organisation may be, are neither trained nor recruited for? Does he consider that some of the military resources to which he referred earlier are not being properly used in the Province? Might he not, therefore, consider whether greater military input into tactical operations and strategic planning might lead to a better resolution of the security situation there?
    Sir John Wheeler: I know that my hon. Friend comes from a background of military service and therefore his views are to be respected, but it is for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to determine the deployment of the police and other security services in Northern Ireland. The Army works in association with the RUC and I can assure my hon. Friend that its present role is extremely effective. I do not accept his contention that the present security situation gives little ground for optimism. Far from it—earlier this afternoon I told the House about the continuing success of the RUC, supported by the Army, in arresting terrorist gangs and seizing arms and explosives.
    Mr. Molyneaux: In agreement with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), does the Minister feel that the statements ill-advisedly made by a former Defence Minister are seriously flawed, and that, henceforth, the decisions on troop deployments and manning levels should be decided by the GOC and the Chief Constable, particularly as it has now been confirmed by Baroness Thatcher that the co-operation of the Irish Republic has been extremely disappointing, a view which she was prepared to state while she was head of the Government of which many present on the Front Bench were members?
    Sir John Wheeler: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the forces in Northern Ireland will be there and available in accordance with the security threat and as decided by the GOC and the Chief Constable.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Bearing in mind that deregulation will be the central plank of Government policy in the new Session of Parliament, will the Leader of the House comment on the case of my constituent Mr. Raymond Townend, who was killed while working on a resurfacing project on the M62 when he was knocked over by a lorry earlier this year? Is the Leader of the House as surprised as I was to learn that the lorry which reversed over Mr. Townend was not required by law to have reversing lights, to have a reversing alarm or to have the manoeuvre supervised by a person other than the driver? Can the Leader of the House understand why Mr. Townend's widow and four children are less than impressed by the Government's theme of deregulation and want more regulation to avoid such tragedies in future?
    Mr. Newton: I am sure, first of all, that the whole House will recognise the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman has made that point, and will understand why he felt it right to raise it, in view of what happened to his constituent, and we extend our sympathy. While he is right to say—and I believe that the. Government are right—that the Government are to make deregulation a central plank of their policies for the period ahead, there is no question whatever of that policy extending to the removal or reversal of necessary protection for the safety of people.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, if young thugs are old enough to break into homes and punch pensioners, they are old enough to be locked up?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's proposals in that respect have drawn support from all round the country. As the House will be aware, he has announced plans for secure units for 12 to 14-year-old persistent offenders and to increase the possible maximum sentence for 15-year-old offenders. I repeat, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeated, that we put the protection of the public first.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Lord President accept that national insurance contributions are a tax on income—yes or no?
    Mr. Newton: National insurance contributions, as the right hon. Lady, who is a former social security spokesman, knows perfectly well, are part of the national insurance scheme which relates to the entitlement of benefits established by the Labour Government in 1948.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Lord President denying that national insurance contributions are a tax on income, yes or no?
    Mr. Newton: National insurance contributions are the means by which people obtain entitlement to certain benefits, including, most notably, retirement pensions. The level of contributions is related to the demands on the fund, and the demands on the fund include the Government's policies to increase pensions in the way that we have over the past few years.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is not it a fact that there is no effective difference between a 1p in the pound increase in income tax and a 1p in the pound increase in national insurance contributions when it comes to the effect on the pay packet? Next April, the Government, and all those now making a noise from the Government Back Benches who voted for it, are putting up both taxes on income and spending and do not have the guts to admit it.
    Mr. Newton: There is a clear difference, which the right hon. Lady has obviously missed in what I have already said: national insurance contributions are related to the provision of an entitlement at a later stage. I shall say to her—and she knows it very well—that there would have been a whole lot less difference if the policies advocated by the Opposition Front Bench at the last election had been put into force and the upper earnings limit had been scrapped, because then it would have been the same as income tax.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending the sympathy of the whole House to the family of police constable Patrick Dunne, who lost his life last night defending the lives of the people of London? Will he discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary ways in which the Metropolitan police, and indeed every other police force in this country, can be made more secure in carrying out their difficult and dangerous job? Does he agree that every police officer in this country does not have a job for life, but they frequently give their life for the job?
    Mr. Newton: The reaction of the whole House will show that everybody heard with deep regret of the death of police constable Dunne in south London last night. Everybody will share my hon. Friend's outrage that a community constable should be shot dead in that fashion while going about his duty in a way that we take for, granted. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who, happily, is close to me at this moment, will have heard what my hon. Friend said and will wish to respond appropriately.
    As my hon. Friend knows, a large number of measures have already been set out by my right hon. and learned Friend, which have been warmly welcomed by the chairman of the Police Federation as being exactly on the right lines to improve the fight against crime. The House will also be pleased to know that I understand that three arrests have been made in connection with that crime.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: The Lord President will recall the answer that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on Tuesday. Therefore, will he tell the House what particular cheese and wine party it was at which Asil Nadir gave £440,000 to the Tory party, and will he explain how much cheese and wine it will take to account for the £70 million missing from Tory party funds?
    Mr. Newton: I do not know that I am expert on all the guest lists for wine and cheese parties. It may be that, at this very moment, in Cyprus, Mr. Nadir is having lunch with Mr. Costa, the benefactor of the previous leader of the Labour party.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend condemn" those who were responsible for the violence in south-east London last Saturday at the anti-British National party march, and express sympathy to those who were injured and those who had property damaged as a result of that violence? Will he join me in congratulating the police on the magnificent job that they did on that occasion, and urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider the whole issue of the BNP in Welling and see what can be done about it?
    Mr. Newton: Again, the House will understand why my hon. Friend raises a point of such concern in his constituency and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said. All of us would want to deplore the violence that marred the march last Saturday just as much as we would want to deplore the policies of the British National party.
    With regard to the BNP headquarters, I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of the difficulties in relation to planning law. I cannot say much more about that except that I understand that Bexley council is meeting to consider the matter further tonight.
    Dr. Wright: Has the Leader of the House seen the statement this week from the heads of all the royal medical colleges in which they say that, because of the Government's market reforms to the health service, urgent cases are being denied treatment and that the patients of fund holders are being given priority over those with clinical need? Does he understand that my constituents are being denied treatment at the Good Hope hospital because all routine admissions have been stopped except for those from GP fund holders? Is not that a disgrace? Is not that a two-tier health service? What will the Government do about it?
    Mr. Newton: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, in conjunction with the Joint Consultants Committee, has issued advice about the way in which emergency cases should be given priority, which does not fit with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The NHS reforms are producing a large and substantial increase in activity in the health service and in the number of patients treated, and are reducing the number of those waiting a long time for treatment. They are successful and they will be made more successful.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jenkin: Can my right hon. Friend explain why some people seem to see a lurch to the right? Could it be that they keep hearing good news about the economy, such as car production up 15 per cent. in September, retail sales up in September, unemployment down in September, rising confidence in manufacturing industry and, if I may say so, 60 new jobs at Trebor Bassett in my constituency?
    Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend's constituency is next to mine and I live only about half a mile away from it, I welcome his last point. I hope that some of the jobs may spread across the border. I also agree entirely that the House will be pleased at the increasing flow of good economic news, particularly that to which he referred—the rise in car production, the rise in retail sales and the fact that unemployment has once again fallen.
    Q5. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Several hon. MembersIs it Harry? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Cohen: Thank you for that warm welcome.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I certainly recognise the hon. Gentleman and so does the entire House.
    Mr. Cohen: Thank you for those kind words, Madam Speaker.
    Are the Government again to cut the money for London Underground? They have already killed the management's 10-year decently modern metro plan. Why are Londoners expected to pay more for a declining third-rate service? Under the Tories, is not the London underground going down the tube?
    Mr. Newton: As I think those on both sides of the House know very well, the amount of investment in the public transport infrastructure, rail and other, that has been advanced in recent years under what the hon. Gentleman chooses to call this Tory Government, has been at high, indeed record, levels. I am sure that we shall continue to maintain all possible investment, while taking account, obviously, of other requirements as well.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend will recall that four years ago the IRA carried out a terrible crime in my constituency, at the Royal Marines school of music in Deal. Eleven people were killed and many more were seriously injured. I met some of them, and saw in my constituency on Saturday someone who is still suffering seriously from his injuries. The people of Deal dearly love the Royal Marines school of music and hope that it will

    387
    stay there for many years to come. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that in any review of marine and military bands, every effort will be made to create a combined military services school of music at Deal, so that we may demonstrate to the world that the IRA will never succeed in its dastardly crimes?
    Mr. Newton: I am sure that the House will understand if once again—and this has happened several times this afternoon—I simply acknowledge why my hon. Friend felt it necessary to make that important point on behalf of his constituents and, almost as if I were answering business questions, to undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Business of the House
3.30 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 25 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied.
TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Until 7 o'clock, a motion relating to the Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations, followed by a motion on the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion relating to the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 2) Order.
WEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on coal on an Opposition motion, followed by motions relating to the Assisted Areas Order and the Assisted Areas (Amendment) Order.
THURSDAY 28 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (20th allotted day).
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The prevention of crime" in the name of the Liberal Democrats, followed by a debate entitled "The need for a cold climate allowance" in the name of the Scottish National party.
FRIDAY 29 OCTOBER—Motions on the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure and the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure.
MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments that may be received to the Railways Bill.
The House will also want to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 27 October at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents Nos. 8426/92 and 8682/93 relating to packaging and packaging waste.
[Wednesday 27 October:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 8426/92, 8682/93, packaging and packaging waste.
Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 79-vi (1992–93), HC 79-xv (1992–93); HC 79-xxxvii (1992–93).]
Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement and for providing a little extra time—although only a little—for the coal debate. However, one and a half hours will be nothing like time enough for all the right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who will want to take part in the debate on assisted area status. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the amount of time allocated to that matter.
I make a broader point. It would be bizarre if, following a long summer break, we were to have a further long gap between the old Session and the new. Our constituents want us to debate value added tax and zero rating, and unemployment. No one but the Government could want Parliament immediately to take a further long holiday.
I ask the Leader of the House to arrange as soon as possible a debate on public expenditure. The House has not discussed the Government's public expenditure plans since
390
15 May 1991. I should have thought that even the Leader of the House would accept that events have moved on since then.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure how much sympathy there will be for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about reducing the length of time during which people will be able to attend to their duties in their constituencies. At any rate, I take note of the point. As ever, an issue such as the public expenditure debate is best left for discussion through the usual channels—I believe that the usual channels have already adverted to the matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Procedure Committee has published a report which touches on this matter and at which the Government are looking with appropriate care.
The hon. Gentleman kindly acknowledged that, following discussions through the usual channels, we had sought to provide rather more time than usual for the motion relating to the management and administration of safety and health at mines. However, I am afraid that I am unable to give the same undertaking about the assisted areas order.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that, following the return of the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary from Cyprus, they will come to the House and explain the silence of the Foreign Office in regard to the appalling attacks and demonstrations that have occurred in Cyprus relating to Her Majesty the Queen, the head of the Commonwealth? Is not it extraordinary that the Foreign Office should have said nothing in the face of those appalling demonstrations, when the EOKA terrorists, who are the centre of the demonstrations, were responsible for the deaths of Greek Cypriots and were hanged in accordance with British law at that time as well as the law in Cyprus? Will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to come to the House with an explanation?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am sure that my right hon. Friend deplores what happened as much as my hon. Friend does. I understand that there has been an apology from the President for the discourtesy that this country feels has been shown on this occasion. However, it should not detract from the fact that there can be no doubt that Her Majesty the Queen will be warmly received at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the appalling murder of a police officer last night, I thank the Leader of the House for accepting our request for a Supply day next week in the name of the Liberal Democrats and for allowing us to debate the prevention of crime.
Can the Leader of the House tell us something about the business on the following Monday? If the House sustains the amendments to the Railways Bill that have been passed in the Lords, can he undertake that there need be no further consideration of that Bill in this House and that therefore the Bill, as then amended, will be passed into law and the Government will not seek to reverse it, once again, later next week?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the House of Lords has asked the Government

391
to look again at various matters, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further until that consideration is complete.
Sir Jim Spicer: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report of Dr. Jenkinson, who is acknowledged as the world's leading authority on soil science? In that report, which was published yesterday, he says that we are wasting hundreds of millions of pounds through the nitrates directive because the standards that have been set are unnecessarily high. That is just one example of the way in which the European Community has taken no account of cost benefits relating to water. Will it be possible for us to have a debate at some time relating to water and cost benefits, because we are all concerned about the protection of the environment and about the increasing cost of these unnecessary impositions on our constituents?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, understandably, has made a point which has been expressed to me in a constituency capacity by the Anglian water authority. My hon. Friend is well aware that the Government take the view that it is necessary to look at the balance between the costs and advantages of a particular policy. We are seeking to ensure that that balance is struck in our discussions on European matters.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Leader of the House aware that early-day motion 330 calling for the enactment of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) and has all-party support, now has well upwards of 300 signatures?
[That this House believes that anti-discrimination legislation is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; and calls for the early introduction of a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.]
Is it not disgraceful for it to have been said that we cannot afford the provisions of the Bill? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement to explain to us next week why we can afford civil rights for everyone else but not for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people?
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise you, Madam Speaker, and I doubt that it will surprise the right hon. Gentleman, to learn that I do not for a moment accept the rather tendentious proposition with which he concluded his remarks. As for his earlier remarks, I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
Mr. Peter Fry: Is my right lion. Friend aware that we have not had a debate on civil aviation for some time? Is he also aware that the present bilaterial negotiations between the United States and us seem to have reached an impasse? As failure to reach an agreement could endanger the US Air/British Airways deal, which is vital to the future of British Airways, should not the House have the opportunity to discuss this important issue before too long?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind. It is an important matter, but I cannot encourage him to expect that I can find an early opportunity for precisely the debate he requests. I shall, however, draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As conditions in Bosnia can only deteriorate as winter approaches, when can the House have an opportunity to debate these matters and urge on the Government the need for both humanitarian and military measures to ease the plight of the Bosnian Muslims?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are two Opposition days next week when it would have been possible, had it been thought right, to explore such matters further. I cannot undertake to find Government time for such a debate in the near future but that is in no way intended to underestimate the importance of the problem. Although the hon. Gentleman may disagree with some of the views expressed from this Dispatch Box and, indeed, from the Opposition Dispatch Box, I think that he will acknowledge that there is universal concern that we should move to a negotiated peace settlement, difficult though that has proved, and that we should maintain the humanitarian effort in which the British Government and people have played a major part.
Mr. David Porter: The Government announced the new sea defence coast protection policy during the recess. Will my right hon. Friend arrange time for the House to debate it, certainly before the winter sets in and the whole of the east coast is threatened once again?
Mr. Newton: Coming from the east coast myself, I recognise why my hon. Friend has raised that matter, but, before we have got very far into business questions, we already have a list of requests for debate which would fill all the time that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Fast (Mr. Brown) wished to make available.
Mr. George Foulkes: Could the Leader of the House arrange for a short statement from the President of the Board of Trade on the 630 job losses at Jetstream Aircraft at Prestwick and especially on what action he will take to eliminate the unfair subsidies to Jetstream's competitors, both through the European Community and the general agreement on tariffs and trade?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to promise an early statement, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling attacks on the Queen in Cyprus prove that the EOKA tendency is alive and well and that there is reason for the people in north Cyprus to be fearful of the proposals being made in the south? It is many years since we had a debate on Cyprus and, to some extent, the failure to settle the Cyprus problem is a failure of British foreign policy. Might my right hon. Friend speed a debate in the House in which we could fully consider the issues and help to find a solution?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear that request in mind.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I endorse the request for more time for a debate on the Assisted Areas Order. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the order covers a wide range of constituencies, and in constituencies such as mine, in Bradford, which has been removed from the assisted areas map, it is a matter of considerable controversy and concern, and will almost certainly mean

393
the loss of many jobs. I am sure that many hon. Members' constituencies are similarly affected, so I hope that, rather than the debate being limited to an hour and a half, it will be given three or four hours, or even longer. The best option would be an open-ended debate, so that any hon. Member who wanted to speak could do so.
Mr. Newton: Under the normal arrangements and Standing Orders of the House, significant numbers of orders are discussed in which many hon. Members have an interest, and some of them may be frustrated as a result of our normal practices. I am sorry, but I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East in our opening exchanges.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will know that we entered the single market on 1 January. Ten months have now passed, and one of the big problems at our ports and airports is how our customs and excise men are managing to deal with drugs, tobacco, alcohol and the many other substances that seem to go through so easily these days. Is it not time that we conducted a review of their work, supported them where we can and ensured that some of the failures of the European single masrket customs system are outlined at this early stage?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made aware of my hon. Friend's question. He is the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise and he also has an interest in much, or rather all, of the revenue gathered.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the earlier exchange between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and myself about the possibility of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting to discuss the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1993? That is an important order with a vast range, and it has come to the House 12 years after its conception. It demands greater scrutiny than would be possible during the hour and a half that would ordinarily be spent on it on the Floor of the House. Can we have a commitment that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will meet to discuss that issue?
Mr. Newton: I did not hear the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), the Whip sitting beside me, has just muttered to me that my right hon. and learned Friend said that the hon. Gentleman's request was a matter for me. I shall endeavour to ensure that the request that the hon. Gentleman has delivered to me across the Floor of the House—I make no complaint about that—is given appropriate consideration.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Did my right hon. Friend catch sight of the admirably succinct letter in The Times yesterday from Judge Stroyan, which said:
"I am paid to administer the law, not to pontificate about it"?
In view of recent and rather rash pronouncements from some of the judiciary, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department to make a statement to the House outlining the
394
rules that apply to judges' pronouncements? Many of us remember a better time when judges remained silent expect on the bench.
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that, perhaps because of the letter's admirable succinctness, my eye must have slipped over it, but I hope that all judicial eyes fell on it.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that early-day motion 2488 is on the Order Paper today?
[That this House offers its congratulations to the organisers and participants in the Pensioners' Lobby of Parliament against the imposition of VAT on gas and electricity and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon this proposal; is further concerned at the facilities of the House for visitors, the humiliation of queueing outside and the lack of refreshment facilities and toilets for them; and therefore calls for an urgent review of the facilities and entrance for visitors with a view to using Westminster Hall for this.]
It congratulates the people who lobbied Parliament yesterday about the VAT that is to be imposed on fuel next year, but is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that those people suffered the normal indignities of those who try to come to Parliament to see Members—queuing for hours outside and being unable to get in, to get refreshments or to see their Members? Most arrived in and departed from London extremely frustrated.
Will the Leader of the House take it upon himself to consider as a matter of urgency the way in which lobbies are organised, so that the carriage gates entrance can be used, Westminster Hall can be used for security checks and as an assembly area, and refreshments and toilet facilities are properly available, so that people can exercise their democratic right to lobby their Members of Parliament, as they should be able to do at all times?
Mr. Newton: As you will be well aware, Madam Speaker, with your particular responsibilities, this matter is, in substantial part, a matter for the Administration Committee. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Chairman of that Committee, who is not in his place at the moment. I understand that the Committee intends to consider at an early meeting the rules that govern the organisation and reception of mass lobbies at the House.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that we shall not have a debate about housing next Wednesday in view of the latest local government ombudsman's report, which shows that maladministration by council housing officers is the biggest single cause of complaint, or is that why the Opposition never choose housing as a subject for debate?
Mr. Newton: It is not for me to say why the Opposition choose particular subjects for debate. However, I shall take that, if I may, as a request directed at Opposition Front-Bench Members, and no doubt they will consider it in due course.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Has the Leader of the House read the maritime report given to the House in the recent past? It reveals the appalling number of deaths of seamen because of the loss of ships at sea. Is

395
it not about time, especially in view of the Government's policy of deregulation, that the House addressed the issues of merchant seamen, merchant ships and safety at sea?
Mr. Newton: I made some comments about safety in regard to deregulation when I was wearing my other hat, half an hour or so ago. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on early-day motion 2445, which was signed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), newly elected to the shadow Cabinet? The motion calls for cuts in defence and for the abolition of Trident.
[That this House welcomes the overwhelming vote at the Labour Party conference calling for United Kingdom defence spending to be reduced to the average level of other West European countries, allied to constructive plans for defence diversification, arms conversion and the transfer of the savings made to economic and social priorities by investment in job creation and economic development and the restructuring of Britain's crumbling infrastructure; recognises the importance of the call for making retraining of the defence sector workforce a priority; applauds the conference majority decision calling for the immediate scrapping of the Trident submarine and weapons programme as an essential step towards the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide; believes that in rejecting Trident the United Kingdom can demonstrate genuine support for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and bolster the consolidation of a comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; further believes that the lifetime costs of Trident deployment kwill be at least £33 billion when re-fit, replacement and decommissioning are included and that it is the hidden extra costs of continuing the United Kingdom nuclear weapons programme that is bound to reduce drastically the possibility of a positive peace dividend; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to support the cancellation of the Trident programme and to plan the investment of resources saved into job creation and industrial innovation in the civil economy.]
Surely the House should know whether the Labour party is serious about our national security?
Mr. Newton: The thought crossed my mind that it was just possible that the hon. Member for Eccles might not have anticipated yesterday's events when deciding to sign the early-day motion earlier in the week. It seemed to me to leave room for some interesting discussions in the new shadow Cabinet in due course. There must have been quite a lot of people who were surprised—including, perhaps, the Opposition Chief Whip, whom I see here. As one rather ingenious commentator put it on the radio at lunchtime, the purpose of the rules was to bring about the election of fewer Scots and more women. The result was to get more Scots and fewer women.
Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the announcement this morning by the German nuclear industry that it is withdrawing from its contracts with British Nuclear Fuels? If that is followed by similar acts by other international nuclear industries, the viability of the commissioning of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant must be brought into
396
question. In view of the fact that the Government have consistently refused a public inquiry, surely it is proper that the House has the opportunity to debate the economic, social, environmental and proliferation problems that the THORP commissioning will bring us.
Mr. Newton: If I remember rightly, a little before the summer recess there was a debate on those matters which was initiated by the Liberal Democrats. I cannot add to what was said then, especially because, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, those matters are currently under appropriate consideration by my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Can my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on early-day motion 2453, signed by hon. Members of all parties, which calls for reconsideration of the decision by the Radio Authority to get rid of the London Broadcasting Company?
[That this House, mindful of the good service to Londoners of the London Broadcasting Corporation, and mindful of public support for it over many years, regrets the decision of the Radio Authority to withdraw its franchise and calls upon that body to reconsider this decision urgently.]
This is a very popular station with 2 million Londoners. Its demise is greatly regretted by many people and should be debated in the House at an early date.
Mr. Newton: Decisions on licences are a matter for the Radio Authority. As I think my hon. Friend will understand, Ministers do not intervene in licensing procedures or seek to influence the decisions.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not about time that we had a debate on the advice that was given recently to the Transport Select Committee that the single most important measure that we can take to reduce road traffic casualties would be to introduce daylight saving and that advancing British time by one hour throughout the year would cut the number of serious and fatal accidents by 600 each year? When will the Government screw up the courage to implement that long overdue reform?
Mr. Newton: Obviously, a number of factors must be taken into account when considering those matters, including that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. Friends will announce their proposals when they finish their consideration of all the issues involved.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House press the Prime Minister when he reports on the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference to take the opportunity to condemn the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Amanullah Khan, a Commonwealth citizen, in Brussels on Monday? Will he urge the Belgian authorities to release immediately Mr. Khan, the chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, and warn all non-EC countries that applications to extradite those visiting the EC quite legally will not be entertained in future?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Following the Government's defeat on livestock premium quotas in another place, will the Government accept that decision or oppose it? When, and in what form, will that matter be debated in this House?
Mr. Newton: I am not able at the moment to respond directly to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: If time cannot be found next week for a Scottish ministerial statement on the report of the inquiry into the cervical smear programme scandal which took place at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock, can I assume that the Secretary of State will refer to that very important matter when he addresses the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee next Thursday?
Mr. Newton: I note that the hon. Gentleman has had the good fortune to secure the Adjournment debate on Monday 1 November when he will have an appropriate opportunity to air those matters, presumably at somewhat greater length.
Mr. David Winnick: On the grounds of fairness and open government, would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for those Cabinet Ministers who have been subjected to such hostile criticism in Lady Thatcher's book to be given the right to come here and put their own point of view? Is it not somewhat unfair that Lady Thatcher has the opportunity to subject those Cabinet Ministers to such criticism, while we want to hear their right of reply?
Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would regard that as the most enormous fun, but I do not regard it as my function as Leader of the House to satisfy his appetite in that way.

National Health Service (Management)
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the management of the health service in England.
Our health reforms are now firmly in place and here to stay. From next April, 90 per cent. of acute and community health services will be provided by NHS trusts. Patients are already benefitting from the freedom to innovate and improve which we have given to NHS trusts, to GP fundholders and to local health authorities. By passing responsibility down to local level, we have released the innovation and energies of those working nearest to users of the service. The result has been a fundamental shift of power towards the patient.
The priority now is to support better patient care through the continued drive towards decentralisation in the NHS. I have concluded that to do this requires changes to the management structures of the health service—structures which are largely unchanged since before the reforms. By streamlining management, we can also make substantial savings in administrative costs. These changes will maximise the proportion of NHS expenditure devoted to direct patient care.
My proposals for achieving these objectives are set out more fully in a background paper, copies of which are in the Vote Office. They follow the functions and manpower review which I announced to the House in May. I should like to place on record my thanks to Kate Jenkins and Alan Langlands, who led the review, and to their team, for the work they undertook.
A guiding principle of the review was that change should support the development of the all-important purchasing function. This function is now the distinctive role of district health authorities. Their job is to build up an accurate picture of what health services local people need, and to purchase services which best match those needs. Like GP fundholders, they have the power to change and to improve services. They lead the drive towards better quality care and better health in their areas.
A key feature of better purchasing is closer working between district and family health services authorities. It makes it easier to take an all-round view, to strike the right balance between hospital and community-based care and to improve public health. These authorities are already working in close partnership in many areas. We wish actively to encourage this.
I therefore intend, subject to Parliament's consent, to introduce a power to enable district and family health services authorities to merge. Such mergers will also eliminate duplication and produce savings in overhead costs, which can be spent directly on patient care. This will build naturally on progress locally.
It is clear, however, that, as the new system matures, strategic management above that level needs to be better tailored to a decentralised service. We need a lighter approach, geared to developing the potential of purchasing, while respecting local freedoms. It must also uphold and strengthen the national accountability of the health service.
Regional health authorities have served us well for nearly 20 years. I pay tribute to their chairmen, general managers and staff, who have led the health service through challenging times. The old hands-on style of the

399
regions is, however, no longer appropriate. I therefore propose to abolish them. I will bring forward legislation to this effect as soon as parliamentary time permits.
In a national service accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament, some strategic overview is required. For this reason, I also propose to reform the NHS Management Executive so that it can more effectively and efficiently discharge those functions which must remain the responsibility of central management.
The NHSME will remain within the Department of Health, but will take on a clearer identity as the headquarters of the national health service. It will be accountable, through its chief executive, to the Secretary of State for delivering against clearly defined targets and priorities. It will have precise responsibilities for strategic management and a straightforward structure to ensure cohesion and clarity of purpose.
Central management will continue to work with professionals to ensure that clinically high-quality and cost-effective practice is identified and systematically implemented, and that new health problems are tackled in a coherent way.
The national health service is the largest organisation in Europe. Its size, complexity and importance demand that central management operate through a regional structure. No institution in the world, private or public, would attempt to run such a scale of operation from a single headquarters.
I will therefore establish, as an integral part of a streamlined management executive, eight small regional offices. Each will be run by a director accountable to the chief executive. A regional structure will enable the NHSME to give more effective support to the development of local policies which provide high-quality health services to the standards set by purchasers, and the health service professions, and which ensure effective co-operation across service, education and research. The regional offices will also replace the existing outposts, and inherit their responsibility for monitoring trusts. We wish to build on the light touch approach which the outposts have successfully developed.
Like the outposts before them, the regional offices must be compact. I intend to set a limit on the total staff budget of each office, commensurate with its functions. A similar limit will be set for the Management Executive as a whole. the NHS needs strong management; but we must bear down on administrative costs to maximise spending on patients.
Health authority and trust chairmen have a key role as local leaders. They will be expected to play a prominent role in the new arrangements. We must also ensure a non-executive link between them and Ministers.
The NHS Policy Board will therefore be restructured to include additional non-executive members, each covering one of the eight new regions. These regional policy board members will provide a channel of communication to and from Ministers. They will be respected local figures, able to make a powerful contribution to ensuring that national priorities are delivered in their areas.
In light of the need for primary legislation, we expect the new arrangements to be fully in place by April 1996. We have plans, however, for making immediate progress towards a slimmer organisation. I propose to reduce the number of regional health authorities from 14 to eight by next April, and to align the boundaries of the remaining regions with those of the management executive's new
400
regional structure. This will facilitate a smooth transition to the new system. Change will be managed to ensure that the effective day-to-day operation of patient services is maintained. Management cost disciplines and targets will be met at each stage.
Ten years ago, this Government introduced general management into the health service. The author of those changes, Sir Roy Griffiths, observed then that it
"cannot be said too often that the National Health Service is about delivering services to people. It is not about organising systems for their own sake".
That principle, above all, has guided the changes that we have announced today.
These changes will slim down NHS management. They will make it simpler and sharper. They will clarify its precise roles and responsibilities, and ensure that it delivers results measured against explicit targets. They will save money on administration to spend on patients, and they will uphold and strengthen accountability. They will continue the process of decentralisation and support the development of high-quality, cost-effective health care.
A better managed health service means better care for patients. These proposals turn the clock forward to more modern and more efficient management, building on the progress of our health reforms. I commend them to the House.
Mr. David Blunkett: I thank the Secretary of State and her office for their courtesy in allowing me to have the statement and the attached document earlier today.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm who has been in office for the past 14 years, who is responsible for the growth in bureaucracy in the national health service, and who created the National Health Service Management Executive and spent £55 million on establishing an office in Leeds and an equivalent sum on severance payments and travel costs.
Who set up the NHS trusts which led to an explosion in the number of managers, administrators and accountants? Who created 18,000 non-caring, non-patient-oriented posts at a time when 8,500 nurses were losing their jobs?
How much more money, on top of the £1·2 billion that has already been spent on NHS changes, is to be allocated to these further moves in what the Secretary of State has described as her new system? Whose system has increased waiting lists to a record 1,031,000? Who increased waiting times over the first quarter of the financial year and has created a two-tier system which the royal colleges and the British Medical Association rightly condemn? Who has demoralised staff with change after change and uncertainty after uncertainty, and who has allowed the market and competition to prevail over democracy and accountability? Where in the statement is there anything about local or regional accountability? Can the Secretary of State point to any suggestion that patients will receive a better service or improved treatment, or that they will find more money allocated to care?
Will the Secretary of State spell out a little further the way in which the regional boards which currently operate will be replaced by "respected local figures"? Those respected local figures will have responsibility, as spelled out in the attached document, for the appointment of members of the trusts and health authorities, and will account for themselves only to the new expanded NHS Policy Board. They will be gauleiters on an NHS politburo—that is what it amounts to.

401
Why should non-elected, non-accountable, non-democratic individuals picked out by the Secretary of State be responsible for running our service? is that not nepotism and bureaucracy gone rampant, with administrative regions replacing the present appointed regions, and individuals replacing those who sit on executive boards?
Will the Secretary of State spell out in greater detail paragraph 17 of the attached report? As she mentioned in her statement, it says that the headquarters of the health service will be at the Management Executive. What will the relationship be between the Management Executive and the Department of Health, between the outposts which make up the new regions and the Policy Board and the Department of Health? What will be the functions? Where will the responsibilities lie? They are not spelt out in the statement or the attached document. We are told that we must wait until 31 July 1994.
Where is the saving of money? How many jobs will be redeployed locally and regionally? How many jobs are to go? How much will it cost us in redundancy pay? How many savings shall we seek from the new "light touch"? Does the euphemism "light touch" mean the abandonment by the Secretary of State and Ministers of responsibility for running the service? Competition, commercialisation, nepotism and centralism are built large in a statement that purports to look after the interests of the patients.
It has recently been revealed by the chairman of the Audit Commission, appointed by the Government, that in some hospitals it takes six people to change a light bulb. How many civil servants will it take to change the Secretary of State's mind? There is no democracy, no co-ordination. Where in the statement or the attached document can the Secretary of. State point to any mention of planning of change, of co-ordination or vision of a strategy for the health service for the next 20 or 25 years? This is a shoddy statement, from a Secretary of State who is a spent force. We shall expose, attack and denigrate the fraud that is inherent in the statement this afternoon.
Sir Anthony Grant: He thinks that the shadow Cabinet elections are still on.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has it right. The appointments to the shadow Cabinet must be motivating the hon. Gentleman.
We always know what the hon. Gentleman is against—we have had another dose of vituperation and abuse—but none of us on this side of the House is any the wiser about what he is in favour of. The long-awaited policy document from the Labour party will be an interesting experience. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is trying to reopen the battles between Nye Bevan and Herbert Morrison in 1948 about whether local government should have control over hospitals. We wait for that gap to be filled.
Much more important is the fact that I have an opportunity to address some important points. Let us be clear about the achievements of the NHS in recent years, and about the fact that those achievements are largely thanks to NHS managers. For every 100 patients that were treated before the reforms, 116 are now treated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned waiting lists. In the last year alone, the number of people waiting more than one year has fallen by 20 per cent. Before the reforms, about 170,000 people
402
were waiting for more than a year. The figure is now down to below.70,000. The reforms have been a major success, due in large measure to the dedication and commitment of NHS managers.
The hon. Gentleman never fails to take a cheap swipe at NHS managers. He quotes a figure of £1·2 billion but fails to acknowledge that the figure includes funds for the appointment of 100 consultants. The hon. Gentleman may think that those 100 consultants should not have been appointed.
Also contained in that £1·2 billion was a great deal of money for clinical audit and for the development of good practice. About one fifth of the money was concerned with the establishment of the NHS reforms. The benefits in terms of the improved quantity and quality of patient care have more than justified that relatively modest investment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about accountability. Accountability in the NHS goes not only to the Secretary of State, although that will remain. Paragraph 17 states that it is not in our view appropriate to establish the NHS as a next steps agency. It is a service of great sensitivity and, understandably, hon. Members want the Secretary of State to be able to address issues that affect their constituents.
However, the hon. Gentleman—who is signed up to a command and control model—fails to understand the significance of the decentralisation down to the local health authority. That will now be strengthened by the integration with family health services authorities, allowing primary and secondary care to be dealt with by one authority. That is where accountability lies. The local health authority is the champion of local people.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has explained much of the thinking around the development of purchasing and the strategic shift, so that we can think of health and not only of institutions.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of authorities that are reporting to the public and making their accounts available for audit by the Audit Commission. The 400 NHS trusts will have their own boards and their own annual meetings to which the public can go. There has been a revolution in the amount of information that is available about the NHS.
The changes that we have introduced are the natural next step. The NHS reforms have been a great success, and the changes will ensure that management will see the further evolution of the reforms and will release, rightly and properly, more money for patient care.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. That exchange took precisely 19 minutes. I will now expect brisk questions from Back Benchers and brisk responses from the Secretary of State.
Mrs. Marion Roe: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, and particularly on her offer to merge DHAs and FHSAs, which will be widely welcomed? Does she agree that, in the modern NHS, it is vital that an all-round view is taken of patient needs, including which services should be provided in hospitals and which in the community?
Mrs. Bottomley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has the answer precisely in hand.
Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Secretary of State aware that the most visible results of her policies in Birmingham last week were patients lying on

403
trolleys all night in the accident and emergency unit at Heartlands hospital, because there were no beds for them? That happened not just on one or two nights, but on three nights.
Is she aware that people were being resuscitated in corridors? Is there anything in her announcement that will help to put an end to that scandal at what was the first hospital in Birmingham to become a trust?
Mrs. Bottomley: Every year, the health service treats 46 million patients. The vast majority of those patients are extremely appreciative of the care they receive. There are times when things go wrong, and when they do, it is important that the problem should be understood and urgently addressed. In Birmingham, as in many inner-city areas, there is a great legacy of hospitals from the past. As we see the strategic shift increasingly to primary care and care in the community, identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), we need to take forward those changes and invest in the patient care of today and tomorrow.
Dame Jill Knight: Have not there been great criticisms to the effect that too much money has been spent on administration and not enough on care? Does not today's statement address that point, as well as representing a further stage on the road towards sensible and wise economies in the health service? Can my right hon. Friend, first, say what money we can save, and, secondly, confirm that every penny of it will go on patient care?
Mrs. Bottomley: Earlier this year, I announced that the regions should bring their numbers down to about 200 from about 570. There has already been a 14 per cent. fall in the regions' budgets this year and the changes that I have announced will take that forward significantly, so that every penny can be spent on patient care, as my hon. Friend rightly asks that it should be. We have a health service that is directed towards meeting the needs of patients to the best of our endeavours.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Heath Government—the Tory Government—of the early 1970s decided to reorganise the health service, and spent a small fortune of the taxpayers' money? Is she aware that the net result has been that, in the past 14 years, the Tory Government have tampered with the service several times, and that what she has announced today does no more than create bigger and bigger quangos, at a time when quangos already take about 20 per cent. of public expenditure in Britain?
We do not want any lessons in democracy from the right hon. Lady, who holds her position not as a result of election but as a result of patronage, and whose arrogance is shown by the fact that she calls upon Marks and Spencer to open early—something that Thatcher and the Queen have never demanded. If the right hon. Lady wants some democracy, why does she not have the health authorities elected half by the community directly and half by those who work in the health service? That would be accountability, and it would be democratic.
Mrs. Bottomley: The model of management that the hon. Gentleman advocates would be a recipe for disaster for the patients involved. There are difficult decisions to be made in health care. The health service is an organisation consisting of 1 million people. It spends a budget of nearly
404
£30 billion, and that requires good and effective management. The hon. Gentleman was reopening the old debate that took place between Nye Bevan and Herbert Morrison back in 1948.
We are witnessing improvements in patient care. We are also announcing a reduction in the number of authorities because of the way in which the reforms have progressed. Trusts are a very much better model. What we want now is for purchasers to champion the interests of patients and secure progressive improvement's in the care that they provide.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the results of her shopping expeditions are much appreciated on both sides of the House?
Is she also aware that, in Bromley, the family health services authority and the district health authority have for some time worked closely together, with premises and a chief executive in common, and that that has led to greater efficiency and to more money being available for patient care? Will she encourage the integration of DHAs and FHSAs in anticipation of the legislation, so that we do not have to wait the two and a half or three years that it will take for it to be implemented?
Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, although only a month or two back I was being castigated for buying my clothes in second-hand clothes shops supported by mental health charities in my constituency. I was grateful to Marks and Sparks for offering to let me come in early, although—on a point of clarification—not opening early.
On my hon. Friend's serious point, I am sure that the merging of DHAs and FSAs will be widely welcomed. I thought it more than a little mean-spirited of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) not to give that proposal a warm welcome. In searching the documents desperately to ascertain what the Labour party's health policy might be, I discovered a document entitled "Your Good Health" dating from February 1992, which advocated a common health authority for primary and secondary health care, so it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to give a warm welcome even to that proposal.
Ms Liz Lynne: Does the Secretary of State accept that the plans for regional health authorities will lead to more centralisation rather than less, and will take away any little accountability there may be in the health service? Does she also accept that, with the merging of the district health authorities and the FHSAs, district health authorities ought to be conterminous with local authority boundaries? Instead of appointing people to the boards, will she make a commitment to direct elections, to enable some accountability in the health service?
Mrs. Bottomley: I must make it clear that the whole purpose of the change is precisely to devolve responsibility to district health authorities, who champion the interests of local people, who establish contracts that are available to the public, and who work with general practitioners to secure improvements in the contracts year on year. The regions are a part of the history of the old command and control style. It did a good job for that sort of health service, but, if we want an evolving health service which is responsive to local needs, we must ensure that the district has the authority.

405
The advantage of direct elections to health authorities is a myth. I have said time and again that that aspect was rejected when the NHS was first drawn up. I do not think that anybody can seriously believe that the health service would benefit from that party political process. [Interruption.] Running the health service is a difficult job. The hon. Lady might wish to listen more than she shouts and speak to the many members of her party who are serving on health authorities and on trusts. I can give her and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) a great list of names of people in their party who are doing a magnificent job championing the interests of local people. Those people will not be grateful to her for denigrating the seriousness with which they undertake their work.
Mr. David Martin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to abolish regional health authorities, but is she aware that it is still the perception of many members of the public, as well as many people working in the national health service, that there are too many administrators? Will she ensure, as the reforms go through, that we see savings that build up not only those at the sharp end of patient care, but patient services?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his point. We are to maintain tight budgets on administrative and overhead costs as we go forward with the further development of the reforms. My hon. Friend might like to know, however, that, of the whole budget for staff costs, about 3 per cent. goes on managers—general managers and senior managers—and 65 per cent. on direct care staff.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister will be aware that waiting lists in the Yorkshire region have increased considerably. Will she tell us how the abolition of the RHAs will help? Are not longer waiting lists evidence that the changes have failed? Will the executives who are to be employed in the new outposts have to include their Conservative party card in the application?
Mrs. Bottomley: That last comment was rather cheap. The hon. Lady might like to know of the great number of people from her political party who are doing a magnificant job—and have for many years—working for various authorities and various trusts.
Clearly, the patients in Yorkshire want the maximum amount spent on patient care and the minimum but necessary amount spent on overhead costs. We believe that we can streamline the services to ensure that we put more into patient care and continue the impressive improvements in the quantity and quality of patient care, in the falling waiting times and in the further developments that we have seen since the reforms were put in hand.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend will find no apologists on the Conservative Benches for the overblown bureaucracy of the present regions. She will know that South East Thames regional health authority has made its highest priority the capital investment of some £50 million in the Medway hospital in my constituency. Will she assure me and my constituents that the capital decisions that it has taken will not be thrown back into the melting pot as a result of her announcement today?
Mrs. Bottomley: I see no reason why the decision that I have announced today should jeopardise my hon. Friend's project. The statutory regional health authorities will remain until the anticipated legislation is completed, which will take a further two and a half years. We expect to merge the regions on those anticipated patterns in the next six months or so.
Ms Hilary Armstrong: Is the Secretary of State aware that patients in north-west Durham will greet with incredulity her statement that her reforms are meant to be in their interests?
Mr. Keith Mans: How do you know?
Ms Armstrong: I know because I live and work with them. Under previous reforms, their services have diminished and disappeared, and accessibility to them is diminishing daily.
Will the right hon. Lady assure me and them that the accident and emergency unit at Shotley Bridge hospital will be kept open, and that they will have access to that hospital and its services, which have served them well over the years?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will know that every part of the health service must face change. Tomorrow's service configurations will not be what they were yesterday. There used to be 200,000 TB beds in this country. If we want to invest money in mentally ill people in the community, to develop services for HIV-positive patients and to develop and pioneer new innovations, we must have regard not only for the traditional ways of providing services but for the royal colleges' studies into the most effective and safest ways of providing a service.
The hon. Lady should tell her constituents that, before the reforms, the average length of wait across the country was nine months. That has now been reduced to five months. The immunisation programme has saved hundreds of thousands of children, and the cancer screening programme has been developed and extended. Since the reforms were set in hand, an extra £9 billion has been made available for the health service.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's radical and common-sense proposals. Does she find it remarkable that not one Labour Member is capable—they are probably medically incapable—of welcoming good news for patients? Will she spell it out to them that, if they oppose these proposals, they will be supporting bureaucracy, which is no surprise, but not supporting decentralisation and more money for patient care? That is a tragedy.
Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, I suggest that Labour Members read Hansard tomorrow to study my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: But does not the Secretary of State realise that this is not a reforming statement but a deformation of the health service? Is she not substituting a public service that is locally accountable with a maelstrom of contractors? There will be little choice for patients; all the choice will be for purchasers. Apart from the Secretary of State, who appoints those purchasers, and to whom are they accountable?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman seems to fail to appreciate that, whereas in the past the chairman of a health

407
authority was primarily concerned with running the institutions within that authority—that dominated the agenda—his task now is to assess the health needs of the population, to establish a strategy to ensure cost and quality-effective services across the range. He is no longer preoccupied with the institution; his task is now dominated by the interests of patients.
That is a very important strategic shift in the delivery of health care, which has been recognised time and again. The health authority is the champion of local people. Its job is to participate and to take note of the views of local people, so that it can take forward those changes. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the significance of that strategic shift, which champions the interests of patients. As with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), if the hon. Gentleman would like a list of the many distinguished members of his party who have seen the opportunities and have a vision of how the improvements can be taken forward, I shall be more than happy to give it to him.
Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, which will be welcomed by all districts, particularly north Essex. Will she confirm that she will continue to move towards funding of districts on the basis of weighted capitation, and that this will be determined by a single national formula, without additional factors built into it by the regions?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am well aware of the strength of feeling among the districts and trusts about the burden of overhead costs. We are moving towards weighted capitation, which will continue to be the policy, subject to the framework set by Ministers.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: How can it possibly be decentralisation to concentrate power in fewer regions which are directly accountable to the management executive and do not meet in public? I asked the Secretary of State a question last year about the future of the regional health authorities, and she said:
"The role of the regions will remain as it is".—[Official Report, 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 486.]
Was the Secretary of State misleading the House? Why has the situation changed? Does she realise that the regions are responsible for commissioning regional specialty services such as cardio-thoracic surgery and neonatal intensive care?
The Government have spent not a small but a large fortune dividing the health service between purchasers and providers, and now, at regional level, they are bringing together in one body the purchasing agency, the regional health authority, and the provider agency, the regional arm of the Management Executive. Is that not an admission of the failure of the purchaser-provider split?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should study the document, when many of his points will be clarified. The role of the region is not command and control, or to dabble in the day-to-day affairs of the districts and the trusts. The new regional offices of the Management Executive will have the strength to bring together intermediate-level interests—which will address the hon. Gentleman's points—but the power goes to the districts, which are the champions of the local people and set the purchasing strategy. Intermediaries should only intervene by exception, or to set a strategic framework, or to arbitrate in
408
disputes. It will be a question of exception, not the command-and-control structure of the past that fossilises health care.
Sir. Dudley Smith: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. In view of the near-criminal financial irresponsibility of the old West Midlands regional health authority, and the allegations in the past few days of severe financial incompetence on the part of the old South Warwickshire health authority, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the new bodies set up to replace them will be subject not only to auditing but to close monitoring where public money is concerned?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. Those charged with spending public money on a service as important as the national health service should operate the highest standards of public service. My hon. Friend will know that we have set up a task force on probity, accountability and openness. The Government's corporate principles are set out in the Cadbury report, and a report will shortly be produced for use throughout the health service.
I share my hon. Friend's concern. The vast majority of people in the health service are deeply committed to providing improved patient care, but when anything goes wrong, it is right that we should leave no stone unturned in setting it right and learning lessons.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Who are the local worthies who can now make the difficult decisions in the national health service that cannot be made by people who would be accountable by being elected? Can the "shop alone" Secretary of State also tell us why, given the chaos that she has created in London's health services, she has not created a regional health authority for London?
Mrs. Bottomley: We have been round this issue fairly often, and perhaps one Opposition Member might be able to think of a different question to ask. Members of the Labour party, like members of all parties, are welcome to submit names for health authority appointments; they come from many different regions. I have to give the same answer that I gave before—that, if any Opposition Members wish, I can put them in touch with many of their party associates who are involved in the improvements. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have heard the answer before."] I have heard the question before, and I am afraid that Opposition Members have to hear the answer again.
I am more than happy to discuss the important subject of London. London has special needs, and its 45 hospitals, which include many teaching hospitals, have special circumstances, but the problems are best tackled by maintaining South Thames and North Thames regions, so that the people involved in those health authorities are aware of the pressure of the outlying districts of the home counties, which are supporting health care in London to the tune of £100 million this year. It is important to keep that process in place.
Mr. James Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all those who wish for strong local purchasing will welcome the announcement that she made today about the powers of DHAs and FHSAs? Those people include patients in south-west Hertfordshire, who already enjoy the benefits of a strong local purchaser. Does she agree that the reforms that she announced today will

409
help managers and professionals to work together with purchasers to promote high-quality care and the best clinical practice?
Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the Secretary of State clarify a subject that was unclear from her statement? Will she give some sign as to the future employment prospects at Quarry house in Leeds for the National Health Service Management Executive? Will she dispel the rumours in Leeds that hundreds of jobs are to be lost at Quarry house? Having spent £55 million on a new building, any Government that can plan their business so badly that they create those jobs, relocate the staff and then lose jobs within a matter of six months are wholly incompetent and do not deserve to be in office.
Mrs. Bottomley: People who work in Quarry house are very concerned that the hon. Gentleman—of all people —should have been the first to undermine their arrival in Leeds. Any organisation of the size and complexity of the national health service needs a headquarters office, and any Conservative Member would have welcomed all those people coming to Leeds, rather than, from the word go, making them feel unwelcome and undervalued.
As to costings, the relocations to Quarry house will bring about substantial savings. There were 25 sites all told in London, and the move has substantially reduced the number of sites, which will lead to savings of about £10 million a year once the immediate costs have been met. The people in Leeds, like the people in regions, will have discussions about how those changes effect them. They are having discussions at this moment. It is not possible to give precise figures, but we need a health service with appropriate management. We have moved on from the reforms. There are new challenges and new needs.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to take pride in Leeds as the headquarters of the national health service and not to seek every opportunity to denigrate and undermine it.
Mr. James Pawsey: The reforms that were announced by my right hon. Friend this afternoon were extensive. Will she elaborate on what she intends to do to improve accountability to the community, to Ministers and, through Ministers, to the House? It may help my right hon. Friend to know that I am thinking especially of proposals that might be put forward by health authorities to regrade or close hospitals.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is a champion of the services in his constituency. It is important that district health authorities, especially when they merge with FHSAs, work hard to secure the involvement and participation of local people. Many Opposition Members mentioned elected representatives on health authorities. I do not believe that that is the right way forward, any more than Nye Bevan did; I believe that the right way forward is proper communication and understanding with local authorities, and especially with the Member of Parliament. The community health council has an important role to play. If a proposal does not meet with the agreement of the community health council, it comes to Ministers for decision.
Mr. John Gunnell: It is precisely because I was appointed to a health authority that I would express concern about one aspect of the strucyture that the right hon. Lady put forward., Will she explain how the eight people who will liaise with her will be responsible for the appointment of 540 boards? In those circumstances, how can those eight people be other than people who are acceptable to Conservative central office? Will not the changes centralise political control but fragment the strategy for health care?
Mrs. Bottomley: As I understand it, there has been little change for many years in the way in which chairmen are appointed, whatever political party has been in control. I pay a warm tribute to those people who, selflessly and with tremendous energy, have been so successful as chairmen either of NHS trusts or of DHAs or FHSAs.
The answer lies in hon. Members' hands. If they know of people who have the dedication, energy and commitment to serve in that way on health authorities, they must submit their names.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the abolition of regional health authorities will be warmly welcomed in my constituency? There the Government health reforms have led to both hospitals adopting trust status, 80 per cent. of the population are now treated by GP fundholders and there is a better standard of services in acute and primary medicine than ever before.
Can she assure the House that there will be no transfer of staff, automatic or otherwise, from regional health authorities to the regional offices of the health service executive? In that way, administration in the national health service will be reduced and patient services will be improved.
Mrs. Bottomley: The new regional offices will be on the model of the zonal outposts which have been monitoring the trusts. That light approach is the one that we wish to pursue. I am delighted to hear of the successes in my hon. Friend's constituency, as he knows that, from next April, 90 per cent. of our provider units will be NHS trusts, leading to better care for patients.
Ms Tessa Jowell: Does the Secretary of State accept that the market created by her health reforms in London is creating chaos with the well-being and serenity of hundreds of thousands of patients who depend on London hospitals for their treatment? Will she give an assurance today to the 500 patients at the kidney unit at King's that they have nothing to fear, that their treatment at King's will continue unimpeded, and that a threat no longer hangs over the unit, which is their lifeline?
Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot give that assurance to the hon. Lady, and she knows why as well as anyone. In the past 80 years, 20 reports have said that there had to be change in London. No change is no option.
One of the great problems in London is that local people were deprived of routine district general hospital services because of the tremendous multiplication and fragmentation of specialty services. I am deeply concerned about the uncertainty that inevitably has to continue a little longer in some of the hospitals.
We have had independent reviews from research and from clinical experts, and we shall take decisions in the near future as to how we can take forward health care in

411
London. In order to release resources for routine care for the men, women and children of London, we have to tackle that problem. The hon. Lady knows that as well as anyone in my Department.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first part of her statement will be widely welcomed by those working in the health service at grassroots level, but that the second part might be less welcome? In view of the fact that district health authorities are responsible for their budgets and for ensuring health care, is there really any need for continuing the layer of bureaucracy over their activities? Could we not grasp the nettle and scrap the lot now?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is asking me to go further, faster, than anyone else in the House. He has rightly identified the resentment at the unnecessary layer of bureaucracy above the local health authority and provider units, which must have the greatest significance. Frankly, there is a role for a strategic body—an intermediate tier—to intervene in the market where appropriate; for example, to ensure that specialty services are properly identified or to intervene in disputes. However, it must mean intervening by exception rather than the command-and-control, rather stultifying approach of the past. We are determined that greater resources for direct patient care will come out of it.
Ms Dawn Primarolo: Will the Secretary of State explain why she praises managers in the national health service but then announces that she is going to sack them? Does she agree that her definition of decentralisation means the break-up of the national planning structure for the NHS? Will she explain what will happen to strategic planning and public health policy when she abolishes her new regions?
Finally, how many doctors' posts will be created as a result of her changes? The right hon. Lady surely must be aware that we have the lowest ratio of doctors—1·4—per thousand of population in Europe. Is her hidden agenda to privatise the health service by the end of the century by using a next steps agency?
Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that we are not establishing a next steps agency. In characteristic style, the hon. Lady seems to think that no one in any organisation should ever have their job reviewed. That is only what I would expect from her, as she has totally sold out to the health unions and is blinkered from the needs of patients.
I respect, and have a great debt of gratitude towards, many extremely able health service managers, but one has to have the structure and management lines appropriate for the organisation—it is not a job creation scheme which never changes for fear of anyone being put in any short-term difficulty. Of course it is our intention to invest extra money in patient care, whether through nurses or doctors.
Finally, clear priorities and planning guidance are sent out. They are approved by me, as the Secretary of State, and sent out by the national health service. We have made it clear, as the hon. Lady will see when she studies the documents, that we want more explicit targets and better measurements of outcome, rather than merely measurements of inputs. All the Opposition think about is jobs for
412
the boys and girls, and the union interest. We think about patient care and output from the service, and that is what we want to hold the health service to account for.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A month ago, as the chair of the London group of Labour Members of Parliament, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health asking for an urgent meeting of London Members with her, to discuss the health service in London and the 150,000 people on the waiting list. One month later, I received a reply from the Minister of Health referring me to the health authorities in London as the only bodies competent to answer our queries. Is that accountability to this House, or is it fudging the issue?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is attempting to ask a question which he had hoped to put directly to the Secretary of State for Health. It is certainly not a point of order.
Sir Anthony Grant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. While I entirely accept your right and duty to select questions from whatever source you think fit—you have not been helped by the long-windedness of the two Front Benches—you will appreciate that no one from the East Anglian region has been called during our discussions of the health service. As you will appreciate, two world-famous hospitals—Papworth and Addenbrooke's—are in that region. Perhaps, when the subject comes up again, that will be borne in mind.
Madam Speaker: I shall certainly keep that in mind, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman—this is a good opportunity for me to place it on record—that I am always anxious for hon. Members who seek to question a statement to be here at the beginning of it. That is a courtesy to the Minister. Some hon. Members, whose names I have listed, were not in the Chamber at the beginning of the statement. Therefore, when I have a choice to make, I shall obviously select those who were in at the beginning.

BILL PRESENTED
  TAXATION OF DOMESTIC FUEL AND POWER (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Nigel Spearing, supported by Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Tony Banks, presented a Bill to repeal section 42 of the Finance Act 1993; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 29 October, and to be printed. [Bill 255.]
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  VALUE ADDED TAX
  That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matter relating exclusively to Scotland).

  WOMEN'S ISSUES
  That the Matter of Women's Issues in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

  Royal Assent
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Welsh Language Act 1993

  National Lottery, etc. Act 1993

Orders of the Day

  European Economic Area Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read
  4.56 pm
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill implements the European Economic Area agreement, which will create the world's largest single market, consisting of 12 Community member states and six of the states in the European Free Trade Association. Perhaps I should remind the House that those states are Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Sweden. The seventh EFTA state, Switzerland, chose last December not to participate. For the sake of brevity, I shall use the term EFTA to refer to those states that will be part of the EEA.
  May I remind the House at the beginning of this debate that the agreement was considered in a scrutiny debate on the Floor of the House in February 1992. The motion in favour of the agreement was approved without a Division.
  The Government have tabled amendments to take account of a protocol signed in March by the participating states, which enables the agreement to enter into force without Switzerland. The Bill as introduced, taken together with the Government amendments, will implement the agreement as amended by the protocol.
  We should not underestimate the trade benefits that the agreement will bring. It will create an area of 18 countries throughout which the four freedoms—for the movement of goods, capital, services and people—will apply. Most of the provisions of the Community single market will be extended to apply to the whole of that area.
  EFTA countries will have to adapt their legislation to make it consistent with the single market rules. Community member states will have to amend their legislation, where required, to cover the whole of the EEA.
  The agreement will create a market with equal conditions of competition and the same trading rules, stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. As the House will recall, the agreement was originally due to enter into force on 1 January 1993. Switzerland's decision meant that that date could not be met. It will now enter into force once all EEA and EFTA states have ratified. We expect the' last states to do so this autumn, allowing the agreement to become effective by the beginning of 1994.
  Liechtenstein will probably come on board some time later, after issues relating to its close ties with Switzerland have been resolved. The protocol allows for that, as does one of the Government amendments to the Bill.
  When the agreement enters into force, the principal means by which it will extend the four freedoms is through the inclusion in the agreement of articles based on key articles from the European Economic Community treaty. It will include in its annexes some 1,500 single market measures.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister referred to the extension of rights and entitlements from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. Does he accept that, as part of the EC, some of the alleged advantages do not extend to Gibraltar.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I know my hon. Friend's concern about Gibraltar, but the arrangements there have been in position since the United Kingdom's accession in 1972. For some matters, such as Gibraltar-based banks, we hope to make the necessary provisions in due course, but if there are other aspects relating to Gibraltar, perhaps, my hon. Friend would like to enlarge upon those in his own remarks.
  As I was saying, the agreement will include in its annexe some 1,500 single market measures, but in addition the EFTA countries will be subject to competition and state aid rules based on those of the Community. The agreement will also establish increased co-operation between the Community and EFTA in Community programmes in areas such as research and development, information services, education, training and youth, small and medium-sized enterprises and tourism.
  The EEA is a dynamic agreement, so EFTA will take on new measures related to the four freedoms as they are adopted by the Community. That will ensure that the agreement continues to reflect business reality.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister is extolling the virtues of the arrangements and the legislation, so why is it that a country such as Japan seems to have a buoyant economy by and large, without the need for all the countries linking together in a single market? We were told in 1973 that our entry into the Common Market would give us entry into that wonderful market. We are now being told that it is to be made a bigger market, yet it all comes to nothing. We have a high level of unemployment, as do all the EC countries. Could he not make clear the reasons for the distinction between our failure and Japan's success?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman invites me to depart rather a long way from the measure that we are debating. I hope that he will recognise that one has to look at the economic and geographical circumstances and the historic background of any individual country.
  The most interesting point relevant to his scepticism is that not only do the EFTA countries wish to join the EEA of their own free choice—they see the benefits it will bring to their economies—but four of those countries have chosen to become full members of the Community, seeking as we do the advantages it brings to our economies and to our people.
  To ensue that EFTA states comply with the rules in the agreement, EFTA will create a surveillance body with powers similar to those of the Commission plus a court with a role similar to that of the European Court and the operation of the agreement will be overseen by a council consisting of Ministers and EC Commissioners on a joint committee. The joint committee will be responsible for the day-to-day running of the agreement, resolving disputes and agreeing amendments to annexes to the agreement in order to take on new Community measures.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister because I wish to refer to the point that he has just made and it might be better to get a response from him now rather than later. He said that there will be a joint organisation between the EFTA Governments and Ministers and the Commission. It may be one commissioner, it may be more. Is it not something of an anomaly that representatives of elected bodies and Governments are meeting perhaps as an EFTA or EEA
  416
  council—six of them meeting one or perhaps two or three commissioners who are, after all, officials? Will they not be meeting the political Ministers to whom the Commission proposes legislation?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these arrangements were discussed at great length by the Ministers representing the EFTA countries and the Council of Ministers of the European Community. Of course, there will continue to be very close, contact and meetings between all the Ministers of the EEA.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I think I am right in saying that the European Court of Justice objected to certain powers being given to the new EEA court. What is the relationsships between the two courts? If a decision were to be taken by the EEA court, could that be appealed to the court in Luxembourg?
  Mr. Sainsbury: There were some rather lengthy and complex, and speaking as a non-lawyer, legalistic negotiations on these matters. As a non-lawyer, it might be better if I wrote in response to the point the hon. Gentleman raises to make sure that we that get the legal reply quite correct.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I want to make progress in due course, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I may be able to throw some light on this discussion. Was there not a disagreement within the European Community concerning the European Court of Justice and its jurisdiction, in that it was insisting that it would be the supreme body in the overall organisation of the EC and EFTA? Is it not significant that, having established that superiority over the activities in the EEA states, there is a risk that the measure could be more centralising than we would wish, given that the European Court of Justice has tended to be one of the architects of European centralisation?
  Mr. Sainsbury: Again, I would say to hon. Friend that the negotiations on this point were lengthy, complex and dominated by the lawyers, of whom I am not one.
  There is provision for that committee to consider the, implications of divergent jurisprudence and to take measures to deal with any problems that arise with it. That suggests that the superiority to which my hon. Friend refers was not clear cut and that arrangements were entered into to deal with that complication. Perhaps I could write to hon. Friend as well as to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
  Mr. John Biffen: My hon. Friend promises to write, but I think that there might be some virtue in having matters of such moment on the record in Hansard.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I take note of what my right hon. Friend says. Perhaps we can put the letter in the Library or arrange for its information to be conveyed.
  I do not want to get too far into the complex legal arrangements for the interplay between the two courts, but I would say to my right hon. Friend, as I said to my hon.

  417
  Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), that there are arrangements for the resolution of any problems arising from what is called a divergent jurisprudence.
  I was just about to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Community member states will have to amend their legislation to cover the entire area. That is the purpose of the Bill that we are now considering. It will implement the United Kingdom's obligations under the agreement and allow the United Kingdom to ratify the agreement.
  he Bill contains three main provisions. Clause 1 makes the agreement a Community treaty in the United Kingdom law, clause 2(1) is a general rule that affords EFTA nationals and companies treatment equivalent to that already given under United Kingdom law to Community nationals and companies. Clause 3(1) is a general rule that implements the United Kingdom's obligations under the agreement where the first two provisions do not apply.
  I will describe the provisions briefly in turn. Clause 1 of the Bill amends section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 by adding the agreement to the list of Community treaties in that section, so obligations arising from the agreement will be treated as Community obligations under United Kingdom law and section 2 of the 1972 Act will apply to them.
  EEA provisions that are directly applicable—for example, the competition articles of the agreement and EEA measures corresponding to EC regulations—will take effect in the United Kingdom without the need for further domestic legislation.
  Where further domestic legislation is required to implement provisions of the agreement, powers need to be provided for that purpose. An example of that is the provisions in the annex to the agreement corresponding to directives. It is there that the two general rules contained in clauses 2(1) and 3(1) will operate.
  Clause 2(1) contains the first general rule. The principle behind the rule is straightforward. Where existing legislation covered by the agreement contains reference to the communities, or some connection with the communities, such as member states, those references will be substituted by corresponding references to the European Economic Area—or some connection with the area—or to both the communities and the area. That substitution will apply where the legislation is limited in its operation by reference to the communities. In that way, EFTA nationals and companies will be treated under the legislation in question in the same way as Community nationals and companies.
  The second general rule, in clause 3(1), will operate only where the first does not apply. Clause 3(1) modifies provisions in United Kingdom legislation and certain other instruments where equivalent treatment will not be conferred by clause 2(1). It modifies those provisions only in so far as it is necessary to implement the United Kingdom's obligations under the agreement. It is intended to cater for legislation on which clause 2(1) will not bite, but which has to be amended to implement the agreement.
  The agreement is the most ambitious and wide-ranging to be entered into by the Community with third countries. It will create the world's largest single market with 370 million consumers, responsible for more than 40 per cent. of the world's trade. It will lead to benefits for both
  418
  consumers and companies throughout the 18 countries. It will provide for closer co-operation between the Community and its closest European neighbours.
  I should add that we are not ignoring the importance of our trade relations with Switzerland. If the Swiss decide in future to join the EEA, we shall welcome that decision. In the meantime, the Community and Switzerland are working to develop relations by improving on existing EC/Switzerland free trade agreement.
  The United Kingdom is particularly well placed to benefit from the agreement. We have well established trade lines with all EFTA countries, partly because of geography and partly because of our previous membership of EFTA. In 1992, we made £5.7 billion of visible exports to the six EFTA states that will participate in the EEA. That business has been won by a wide range of industries and the agreement will bring further opportunities for exports from Britain through opening up services and public purchasing, shared research and development programmes and the extension of common technical standards and regulations.
  There is a substantial potential benefit for the services sector. Financial services will be able to "passport" into EFTA countries. The aviation market will be opened up through the extension of EC aviation measures such as those on competition and passenger capacity. United Kingdom professionals will be able to offer their services across all 18 member states of the EEA. I can assure the House that my Department will play a full part in helping our companies take advantage of these new opportunities.
  Earlier this year, we set up the Business in Europe service to help firms succeed in the new Europe, created by both the single market and the EEA. We shall give companies help on the practical aspects of selling in Europe, information on the new trade rules and assistance if they face unfair barriers to trade. We are in addition recruiting four export promoters specifically for the EFTA countries, including Switzerland.
  The creation of the EEA is entirely in line with the Government's commitment to develop a Community that is open, market-oriented and outward-looking. It will ensure that trade within the larger part of Europe is based on the principles of open market and open economy that we hope will extend one day throughout the whole of Europe.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend is kind to give way so much. Will there be a further advantage in contributions from the EFTA states of the EC? It seems, from reading this complex treaty, that on page 215, in protocol 32, provision is made for contributions by the EFTA states to the EC. Will that involve a lot of money, and will we benefit a great deal in consequence?
  Mr. Sainsbury: There is a cohesion fund—an expression with which I suspect that my hon. Friend is familiar—which will enable the EEA countries to make a contribution to the poorest parts, or poorer parts, of the Community. Among the beneficiaries will be Northern Ireland.
  A further and substantial advantage of the agreement is that it is greatly facilitating the negotiations that are currently under way with four of the EFTA states—Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden—for them to join the Community as full members. The Government strongly support their applications.

  419
  Although enlargement of the Community is an important goal, the agreement remains significant in its own right. It creates a market that represents almost half of the world's trade. Its benefits will be enjoyed by consumers and businesses alike. It will ensure that trade within western Europe is based on the principles of an open market economy. British exporters want to win the new business that is available to them from the new opportunities that the agreement creates, and want to do so without delay. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I thank the Minister for his concision on a Bill that is important to the House, as we saw yesterday in the procedural motion that we debated and are now taking through all its stages today.
  Her Majesty's Opposition welcome the Bill. We welcome the underlying principle, which is to extend the single market from the European Community to the EFTA countries. As the Minister said, through the agreement that we are debating and the subsequent modification of Community law, we are seeing the creation of a single market of 18 countries, with 380 million consumers.
  Notwithstanding the high levels of unemployment throughout the European Community—alluded to yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I am glad to see in his place, beside my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)—the fact remains that the European economic area will become the largest and richest single marketplace in the world.
  The prospect has been opened up that as nation states in central and eastern European countries break away from their communist past, with their centralised economies, they may also join the European economic area, perhaps by the end of the decade.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have heard all these stories about this Common Market claptrap for 22 years: if we can make the market bigger, it will be better for Britain. I remember that, when West Germany annexed East Germany, people said that it was going to widen the market and that everybody would be better off as a result. We all know now that the British taxpayer is footing the
  bill for the annexation of East Germany, and to some tune.
  I remember—those golden days in retrospect—when Britain used to build ships. We used to put manufactured goods in them, send them to the four corners of the earth. They used to come back. Some of them had Commonwealth preference. We used to put food in the ships. It was a nice little earner. We used to sell our manufactured goods. We had a balance of trade surplus. We do not now have a shipbuilding industry; the Government have ruined that. We have a deficit with every Common Market country on trade. The whole thing has been an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end. Now my hon. Friend is saying, "If only we can make it a bit bigger, we can have even more of this claptrap."
  Mr. Bell: I am glad that my hon. Friend managed in his intervention to mention Mr. Arthur Daley and his nice little earner.
  Yesterday, my hon. Friend talked with his usual eloquence of socialism in one country. He will be happy to note from the response given by the Minister to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that, under the
  420
  cohesion agreement, a fund will be set up to assist poorer regions of the Community. It will consist of 500 million ecu in grants over five years plus an interest rate subsidy of 3 per cent. on 1·5 billion ecu of loans. As the Minister said, that covers Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Greece, Portugal and most of Spain. As socialists, we are all keen on the transfer of wealth from those who have to those who have not and on a proper distribution of that wealth to the poorer regions.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Given the Government's new stand that a single currency and economic and monetary union are no longer an immediate prospect, is it realistic to think that such importance will be placed on the cohesion funds in future? As I understand it, the purpose of the cohesion funds was to encourage the convergence that made a single currency possible.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman, who followed the Maastricht debates with great interest and enthusiasm, has touched on a point of great embarrassment to the Government. The Heads of Government will shortly meet again. The Prime Minister and the Government say one thing in the House, but they will have to say something else to the Heads of Government, who propose to continue along the route to a single currency, because they tell the House that we do not. When that debate takes place, it will be interesting to see where we are going.
  To return to my earlier train of thought, as the Minister said, we are debating the most ambitious and wide-ranging agreement to be entered into by the Community in relation to third countries.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Bell: I just want to make one point to my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South, who are following the debate with interest, as are my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  We shall hear opposition to the Bill on the Floor of the House, but one should consider the difficulties of the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the difficulties of the new American free trade area between the United States, Canada and Mexico, and the long haul of Maastricht not only in Britain but throughout the EC. Here we have European neighbours coming together in an area where there is to be free movement of goods, capital, services and people, under an agreement which includes consumer protection, environmental protection—which is important to the Labour party, the Government and those who consider such issues with care—statistics and company law; an agreement which will lead to the enlargement of the European Community.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend sought to make the case that there was some sort of redistribution of wealth in this arrangement. Would he care to comment on the idea that the common agricultural policy, sustained by Common Market expenditure, on which 70 per cent. of EC funds are spent, destroys the agriculture of the developing nations, results in large quantities of food being dumped on world markets and is harmful to the very poorest of the poor? Year after year, we are told by proponents of the Common Market that that will be changed, but it gets worse. More

  421
  money is being spent and there are more food surpluses and mountains. Yet now EFTA wants to help to prop up that discredited and disgraceful regime.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The common agricultural policy is not part of the agreement and it does not extend to the new economic area. When the matter was raised in the other place, Lord Peston, on behalf of the Opposition, said of those in the EFTA countries, "Lucky them." My hon. Friend's point goes to the heart of the GATT round at this moment and the discussions and debates there.
  In the Community that we are seeking to create and enlarge, we want basic freedoms to be enlarged in relation to political identity and harmonisation, with common institutions that will bind us together. I confirm what the Minister said earlier, that the Opposition look on the European economic area as a stage on the way to enable countries in the EFTA area to make their entry into the EC.
  Dr. Godman: Part III of the treaty, which relates to the free movement of persons and so on, is of more than passing interest to numerous constituents of mine who work in the offshore oil and gas industries. Is my hon. Friend aware that very few United Kingdom registered vessels operate in the Norwegian sector, whereas in the United Kingdom sector the picture is entirely different? Is my hon. Friend confident that there will be a more even distribution of work in the two oil and gas sectors following the establishment of the treaty?
  Mr. Bell: The provisions on the free movement of persons will create a right for Community and EFTA nationals to work anywhere in that area. That is a coherent part of the agreement on the European economic area with the final Act and declarations. Community and EFTA nationals will be able to operate as self-employed persons throughout the area and to set up and manage undertakings under the same conditions as local nationals. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point is covered by the agreement. It is agreed in the text and words, and we hope that it will be shown in deeds.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not want to be too hard on the Minister in view of his dramatic announcement a few moments ago that Northern Ireland will now be eligible for grants from the cohesion fund. Will not that be great news for the port of Larne, which was told before that Northern Ireland was not eligible?
  Mr. Bell: I hope that it is good news for the people of Northern Ireland. That was clearly stated by Baroness Denton in the other place when she took the Bill through the House last November.
  We note that the European economic area agreement does not extend to VAT or to other areas of taxation. That was touched on yesterday in the procedural debate. The EFTA countries will not be obliged to apply VAT in their countries, but as and when they join the Community as full members they will do so. The same applies to customs union. There are no plans for the European economic area to become a customs union. EFTA is not a customs union. The seven EFTA states have different external tariffs. However, on becoming full members of the Community, EFTA states will have to join the union. Community
  422
  fishermen will have increased access to Norwegian and Icelandic grounds and reduced tariffs for trade in fish between Community and EFTA countries.
  Dr. Godman: Will Spanish fishing vessels have the same rights as those few United Kingdom vessels that now fish in Norwegian waters, despite the fact that the former have no history of fishing in those waters yet the latter have fished in northern Norwegian waters for many generations?
  Mr. Bell: I seem to be taking over the Minister's role in interpreting the agreement and various documents, such as those on the European economic area and business in Europe. I am sure that the Minister, with his vast staff, can answer those questions better than I can. However, the European economic area is what it says it is, so I think that I can confirm what my hon. Friend says.
  Again, I am not the Minister. I suppose that the only good thing is that while I am on the Floor of the House, I cannot be sued for slander, defamation of character or negligence if I get anything wrong. However, the point was made.
  Dr. Godman: It was a good point.
  Mr. Bell: It was, and an important one for fishermen.
  Britain accounts for a large part of protected salmon, herring and mackerel interests, but the Bill does not amount to an extension of the Community's common fisheries policy to EFTA. During yesterday's short debate on a procedural motion, a plea was made for a two-day debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that the Opposition had asked for two days. That was the wish of the shadow trade and industry team, but the decision to have a one-day debate was made through the usual channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said that the usual channels went back to 1992; but the decision had nothing to do with the shadow trade and industry team.
  One irony of yesterday's debate occurred when the hon. Member for Southend, East looked across at my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and asked whether he had heard a Conservative Minister speaking at the Tory party conference. Some of us have a vivid imagination and can visualise my hon. Friend attending the Tory party conference as a delegate and speaking at a fringe meeting about socialism in one country and in our time. That would be a great wonder to behold.
  In fact, the Tory party conference was attended by the Swedish Prime Minister, who addressed a fringe meeting on the merits of the agreement that is before the House. I hope that the Swedish Prime Minister said—although this was not reported in the press—that Sweden supported the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty and that if Sweden ever signed up to it, it would also sign up to the social chapter.
  At another Tory party conference fringe meeting, the Secretary of State for Social Security unveiled himself like Superman and declared that there would be two sets of measures to clamp down on benefits paid to foreigners. The first was that foreigners allowed into the United Kingdom on condition that they would not claim benefits would be prevented from doing so. That was at best an illogical statement. How can someone who has entered the country promising that he will not claim benefits

  423
  subsequently be prevented from doing so? Nevertheless, the Secretary of State received a standing ovation for making such a statement.
  The right hon. Gentleman also proposed preventing benefit tourism by introducing a requirement that one must live in the United Kingdom before being allowed to claim. He said that many foreign claimants are allowed into the United Kingdom on the express condition that they would be no burden on the public purse. I hope that those remarks were not made at the fringe meeting attended by the Swedish Prime Minister, because he would have been saddened to hear that he was considered a foreigner and that his subjects should not be allowed to become benefit tourists.
  Let our imaginations run wild—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not allow his imagination to range so wide that his remarks bear no relation to the Bill.
  Mr. Bell: I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House that my remarks will relate to the Bill. According to the Secretary of State for Social Security, benefit tourists will be guided away from those beaches that do not meet European directives on bathing waters—a point to which the Minister for the Environment and Countryside referred yesterday.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend believe that the comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security at the Tory party conference were a coded indication of opposition to part of the Bill? That part of the explanatory memorandum dealing with its financial effects states:
  "There may be a small amount of additional expenditure as a result of the application of the Income Support Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1967) to EFTA nationals. However, it is not possible to predict how many EFTA nationals, will claim income support, so precise expenditure is not possible to estimate."
  Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should provide such an estimate, particularly when income support is under savage attack by the Government?
  Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to draw attention to the coded messages that are sent from one Secretary of State or Minister to another. Yesterday, we heard a sad comment from the hon. Member for Southend, East that statements made by Ministers at party conferences do not always turn out exactly as one would imagine. We believe that the statements to which I have referred reflect the thoughts of Ministers, and that the Secretary of State hoped that we would not notice them—or the fact that he was speaking contrary to the wishes of members of the Treasury Bench, in dealing with the Bill.
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend seems to have detailed knowledge of all aspects of the agreement, so I will refer to one of concern to many working in Scottish salmon farming. Is my hon. Friend confident that the agreement will protect the interests of those employed in that industry from unfair practices by Norwegian salmon farmers? Before the agreement was signed, the Community, by means of the imposition of tariffs, protected the interests of Scottish salmon farmers against the dumping of Norwegian salmon in Community markets. Is there any protection against that kind of behaviour in the agreement?
  Mr. Bell: I am always glad to stand in for the Minister and answer such questions. I repeat my earlier remark shat a large part of the protected herring, salmon and mackerel
  424
  interests will remain protected in accordance with the agreement, and that the Bill will not extend the Community's common fisheries policy to EFTA. My hon. Friend was right to raise that important issue and to demand an answer from the Minister. We will help the Minister by putting our questions formally, so that they will appear on the Order Paper.
  We contrast the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Social Security with those made by the Foreign Secretary at the Cornwall European constituency council lunch on 15 October. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was invited to that function, but there he would have heard the Foreign Secretary say that we must reconquer the high ground of Europe.
  That is a remarkable statement by the Foreign Secretary of a Government who found themselves in a minority of one during consideration of the Maastricht agreement. They had to get themselves two opt-outs; they struggled in the House of Commons for six to nine months before they were able to pass the Maastricht agreement; and, at the end of the day, they required a vote of confidence. If that is reconquering the high ground, it astonishes me to think that the Foreign Secretary ever knows where the high ground is.
  We have seen the Government fritter away the opportunities of having a European central bank in London. They tell the nation how the City of London will be protected and enhanced by their action, yet we have lost all hope of having a European central bank. [Interruption.] The universal applause from Conservative Back Benchers will please the City of London, which for many years has bankrolled the Conservative party and provided votes at general elections. It is astonishing—
  Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps what was most revealing about the lengthy procedures on the Maastricht Bill was the Opposition's approach. Some Opposition Members, although not those below the Gangway, claimed to be in favour of the European Community but consistently voted against it.
  Mr. Bell: We found ourselves in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with a Conservative Swedish Prime Minister on the terms of the social chapter and on the fact that it should be part of the Maastricht treaty. Had the Minister supported the social chapter, we would not have had six months of long and lengthy debate. The social chapter is agreed by the other nation states and would be agreed by Sweden and the EFTA countries.
  It was astonishing to see the Government scuttled on so-called black Wednesday, when the pound came out of the exchange rate mechanism. We saw how the Government took refuge in a straightforward devaluation of the pound to become the party of devaluation. [Interruption.] We will remember that applause. We will remember for the nation how the Tory party became the party of devaluation. The Government were unable to hold a common line on monetary policy with our European partners. So they had better find out where to begin the conquest of the high ground of Europe and be sure that they carry enough oxygen to get them there.
  The Foreign Secretary said at the Cornwall constituency council meeting that "ours" is a positive message. They are so positive about this Bill that, as the hon. Members for Southend, East and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said yesterday,

  425
  it has lain in the Vote Office for a year. That shows how limp the Government are when it comes to getting measures through the House of Commons.
  How will the Bill help our business community? The Opposition believe that small firms will be able to benefit from cross-research and development and cross-trading opportunities. We know that United Kingdom business has welcomed the agreement. Our exports to the EFTA countries, referred to by the Minister, are about £7·5 billion —equivalent to two thirds of our exports to the United States.
  I referred earlier to the prospect of failure of the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. There is also the prospect of failure of the American free trade area agreements with Canada and Mexico. The world is drifting towards protectionism, a beggar-thy-neighbour attitude and policies that would lead to more stagnation and recession. We should contrast that picture with the situation in Europe, where a market is developing. It is not a rigged market—examples of which are well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—but a single market. We support a developing market which brings closer together the people of Europe and which brings the Community together as a living and expanding entity.
  I shall end where I began by saying that the Labour party is committed to the enlargement of the Community, not just in nominal terms but in real terms. The Scandinavian countries want to be part of the Community, notwithstanding the remarks about Norway made yesterday by the hon. Member for Southend, East. The hon. Gentleman commented earlier on the cohesion fund. When the Scandinavian countries join the Community of ours, they will be net contributors. They will make a real contribution to both the political and social context. That was shown by the speech made by the Swedish Prime Minister at the Tory party conference.
  The Minister let slip a phrase which is more significant than even he realises. He talked about a new Europe. The Labour party has argued in this House throughout the Maastricht debate and in our entire approach to Europe for a new Europe. The new European economic area—the merging of Community interests with those of the EFTA states and bringing in the eastern European states—is looking towards that new Europe. That is why I commend the Bill to the House and why we will support the Government.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Most of it was devoted to an almost Jenkinsite view of the Community and the virtues of its centralising destiny. Towards the end, to show that he was not wholly left behind by events, he talked about the virtues of enlargement. The hon. Gentleman will have an exciting learning curve, aided by his hon. Friends in the Chamber, if he holds these responsibilities when the Labour party has chosen its Front-Bench team. I wish him well. I prefer to oppose a communautaire Labour Front Bench than a revisionist Labour Front Bench.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will convey to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board
  426
  of Trade our regret that he could not be with us to move the Second Reading. This is a tremendously important Bill, and it would have given him the chance to put to the House his views on the Community, which perforce he has not been able to do over recent months, for reasons that we all understand. Each and every one of us will be most anxious to see him back at the heart of this debate.
  Mr. Skinner: Not closing pits.
  Mr. Biffen: It will be a diversion from other activities.
  I welcome the Bill, in the sense that it seeks a closer association of this country with the EFTA members that are designated as prospective members of this arrangement. I welcome it because, broadly speaking, those countries are at the edge rather than the heart of Europe. Because they are on the edge of Europe, they will have certain cultural, geographical and economic interests that are more closely aligned to ours than those of many existing members.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce indicated assent.
  Mr. Biffen: That is a casual observation, but I am glad to have the confirmation of the Liberal Democrats. That is the type of common sense which occasionally escapes during debates such as this. We invent for ourselves wonderful trade prospects. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, on the whole, the track record of those who have been forecasting economic joy at every stage of our European relationship is not entirely compelling. Therefore, I am basing my case upon other considerations.
  There is one point that the House must consider very carefully. There is, as it were, a seamless robe about European Community developments. Just as the original Rome membership led to the Single European Act, and that in turn led to all the arguments about a single currency, what we are seeing here is a staging operation whereby a number of countries, formerly within EFTA, are expected to be incorporated into the European Community.
  That development is welcomed by the Government, because it is central to their policy, and it is also welcomed by those on the Opposition Front Bench, and especially by me. I cheerfully endorse the prospect of a wider Europe, because I believe, among other things, that within that widening there will have to be a recognition of the great diversity of Europe and an acceptance that one cannot have, the centralisation which has been fashionable in recent years.
  What interests me about the proposals is that, at this stage in the development of the European economic area, which is in fact to do with the consequences of the Single European Act, no significant attempt is being made to loosen the relationships under the Single European Act. The full rigours of the Act will be applied. Is this to be the Community of the future?
  As I see it, there is a conflict between the desire to go beyond mere free trade to something more positive contained in the Single European Act—I respect that, and it has, I think, been widely accepted throughout the European Community—but one consequence was not foreseen: the enormous strengthening of the Commission's powers as it sought uniformity on the most massive scale. The reaction against that can be seen in the importance that the Government now attribute to subsidiarity.

  427
  I believe that subsidiarity is a means of trying to check and reverse the Commission's growing power under the Single European Act. It is a great challenge, which I welcome—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) will have the opportunity to make his own speech, which I am sure will be less generous than mine. I am seeking the greatest possible agreement with the members of the Front Bench.
  If our objective is to loosen the arrangements under the Single European Act, let it be an explicit objective. If no attempt has been made to loosen the circumstances in which the Single European Act will be applied in the European economic area, let us understand why. Let us understand that it was purely a temporary measure required of us by the exigencies of the negotiations, but that the objective of the wider Europe, including the EFTA members, is to ensure a loosening of arrangements under the Single European Act, arid especially to use the powers of subsidiarity to limit the authority of the Commission.
  This point is not a passing debating point: it is crucial to our relations with our prospective partners in the north, and will also be valid when considering our relationships with the Czech lands, Hungary, Poland and possibly Slovakia. There will not be the homogeneity that exists between the economies of the EFTA countries. The situation is more complex and varied, so the changes for which I plead will be absolutely crucial in the relationships to be developed with prospective partners in the east.
  This issue is at the heart of the expansion of Community membership, which is crucial to Government and Opposition policy. It cannot be left as a good-natured avowal or rhetoric to buy off the House, at Question Time or at any other time. It must be clearly spelt out as an integral part of Government policy, to be pursued in the renegotiation of Maastricht and the deals that are expected to be done in 1996.
  That is the only point I want to make; it is a headline point and not a detailed point about the legislation, but my experience of EC legislation is that one must take each stage very carefully and ensure that the Government make it clear where they expect the next development to take place. That was not the case with the Single European Act, which was never sold on the basis that it would lead to economic and monetary union. However, I travelled, as ever, hopefully.
  Recently, under the rubric "Raise your eyes, there is a land beyond", my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister contributed to The Economist, volume 328, serial No. 7830, pages 23–27. That is a rather prosaic introduction, so I shall summarise the article. It was the "Brixton Manifesto" on the great issues of the European Community. It makes encouraging reading for me. I shall not detain the House much longer but, in the context of tonight's debate, I shall read out three quick quotations.
  My right hon. Friend wrote:
  "I believe it is time to look afresh at the community and consider the way ahead. Time to put away the old slogans, dreams and prejudices. All over Europe, what are people worying about? Not to reduce the number of currencies, but to increase the number of jobs."
  The following quotation could be specific to this debate. He wrote:
  "I believe it is that centralising vision that alarms so many voters in the applicant countries of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Austria."
  He went on:
  "Community leaders should recognise that danger"
  428
  of centralism
  " and work to avoid it; not imply—as they sometimes do—that these EFTA (European Free Trade Area) countries are lucky to be able to apply. The Community is not Europe. A true European Community needs the EFTA countries and others."
  That is almost illegitimacy made an art form.
  I am delighted to believe that, after the passage of this legislation, the prosecution of policy will be predicated on the overwhelming requirement to ensure that the implications of the Single European Act are not carried to such an extreme that they sustain the present unacceptable authority of the Commission.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before I comment on the distinguished contribution of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), whom I think of as the right hon. Member for Ludlow, may I say that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and colleagues will know that it is my habit to attend these debates as often as I can to listen to the speeches. If I have to depart because of a long-standing and vital engagement, I hope to return as soon as possible, but if I do not do so before the following speaker has concluded, I hope that the hon. Member, whoever it is, the House and those who wind up will understand.
  I refer to the speech of polity that we have just heard. The right hon. Gentleman does not favour the treaty, but he is like those people who favour it while hoping for a change of direction. The Brixton manifesto, which is well named, is also of that persuasion, as are many of my Front Bench colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the central issue—the Commission's power, the demands of the single market and the modification of subsidiarity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is a little optimistic: not only does the Commission remain the sole fount of legislation in its raw state, but the single market commands and determines almost all commercial, quantitative, monetary or legal obligations. Of course, the famed and over-publicised principle of subsidiarity does not apply where the Community's competence has vires, as it has over the single market. Therefore, all the hopes and flourishes of the Brixton manifesto and of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and his Front-Bench colleagues are, alas, bound to end in disappointment.
  The demands of a market—I shall return to that theme later in connection with Scandinavia and the other EFTA countries—involve more than simply freedom. There may be freedom for some; we have heard the Minister talking about the four freedoms, about movement of capital and so on. But rules and legislation are required, and the more a level playing field is demanded, and the more we say that there should be no interference with competition by state or Community subsidy or law, the more authority becomes necessary, and the more complex it becomes. Over the wider area that the market covers, with its different geographical conditions—in this case, in the northern parts of Europe—more and more authority is required; more courts and more interpretation are needed.
  A great deal more is being required of the EFTA countries, especially Finland, Sweden and Norway, than has been popularly understood in this country. The "treaty of Oporto"—that is what it ought to be called—has not been mentioned so far. It was signed on 2 May 1992, and

  429
  requires the single market, in all its authoritarianism, to be imposed lock, stock and Commission on all the members of the EEA.
  The applicant or semi-applicant states have had to take almost all the legislation on board. I want to find out about the exceptions later, because we should know what they are. The applicants have had to take on, holus bolus, the whole of the famed single market that came into operation on 1 January. Moreover, they are to have only a consultative role concerning any amendments thereto.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: That is up to them.
  Mr. Spearing: It may be up to them to a certain extent, but—I shall now put the argument that I intended to put later—is not what is happening virtually force majeure? If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were sitting in the Riksdag in Sweden or in Norway in the—
  Mr. Bruce: Storting.
  Mr. Spearing: Yes, the Storting. The Danes, too, were involved in something similar recently. The economic and social pressures, and the talk of the risks if those countries do not join, do not necessarily lead to willing acceptance. Countries can accept adherence for all sorts of reasons other than absolute willingness. The relative position of those states, and the relative size of their economies and populations, form at least an element. In the Storting, there was a relatively small majority in favour of entry.
  Will the Minister who winds up the debate tell us about the exceptions to the authoritarian structural market, about which we are learning more and more? The northern parts of Europe, especially the three states that I have mentioned, are distinctive in climate, in peoples and in social development. Their landscape is one of fjords, fields, forests and farms, and their communities depend greatly on that base.
  Norway also depends greatly on the life of the North sea—the marine life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has illustrated so well by his questions. Of course, we all know that the European policies on agriculture and fisheries have been such an outstanding success that we want other people to join in. The communities that live nearest to the earth, the forests and the sea are the most vulnerable.
  State aids are prohibited in principle in any part of the single market. They can exist only with permission, and that will be given only if the Commission does not think that they will distort the market. But the Commissioners' job is to protect the treaties, and the treaties require the single market; it is the golden calf of the whole outfit.
  A description of the EEA agreement issued by the European Free Trade Association in February 1992 says the following about state aid:
  "The EFTA countries will have to provide information about existing and proposed aid schemes to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, which may order them to be altered or abolished. New aid schemes may not be implemented without the approval of the Surveillance Authority."
  Anyone who has travelled in those countries will know how important a part state aids—that is an ugly phrase; my hon. Friends and I might use the expression "community support"—play in the life of their communities. Indeed,
  430
  many Scandinavian countries have the advantage of not having experienced a medieval period dominated by great landowners, as we did in this country.
  In harsh conditions, the whole of life is based on presumptions of co-operation and commonality, and on a close relationship with the environment of field and fjord. That attitude is shared by many of the Scots communities. No wonder they, too, feel the problems that arise. The landscapes and the way of life in many parts of Scotland are not dissimilar from those in Scandinavia, which is not surprising, because the people come from common Viking ancestors.
  Will most of those communal and state aids now be under threat? I suggest that, in principle, they will. I hope that the Minister he will tell us of any derogations, either permanent or transitional, written into the treaty of Oporto that modify the otherwise harsh requirements of the single authoritarian market as they affect the fundamental ways of life of our neighbours, especially in Scandinavia.
  No mention has yet been made of Iceland, but I believe that that is one of the six territories. I bracket Iceland with Scandinavia and, of course, with landlocked Austria. Switzerland, another landlocked country, will not be involved. What country could be more central in financial and geographical terms to the continent of western Europe than Switzerland? Yet the Swiss have examined the matter closely and said, "No, we can do better on our own."
  What about VAT? There is to be harmonisation, as we all know, because it is already causing problems. The countries in question, rightly and for their own reasons, have relatively high VAT, but they also have high standards of social support. We all, especially the Opposition, know that their people—perhaps not gladly, but assuredly—put up with high turnover taxes, but that in return they receive a high social wage. That fact is built into the community life of those countries, as I have explained. What will happen if there is freedom of movement of labour?
  I suspect that even now some of the people of the north-east, perhaps from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), our Front-Bench spokesman, and some of the people from Scotland, possibly even from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, work in the Norwegian offshore oil industry.
  Dr. Godman: That is the problem; they do not.
  Mr. Spearing: But some people from the north-east do.
  Dr. Godman: I must point out to my hon. Friend that the Norwegian authorities make every effort to ensure that it is extremely difficult for a United Kingdom national to obtain employment in the Norwegian oil and gas industry.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives an example that illustrates my point well. I can well understand why the Norwegians act in that way, just as I would understand, if there was an independent Scotland, that the Scots would not be too keen on Norwegians coming in and doing the same thing.
  There is some social coherence in Bergen, in Stavanger, in Trondheim or wherever. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has said, there is a feeling that it should be Norwegians first. Once the treaty is in force, will what my hon. Friend has told me no longer apply? I suspect that that may be the case.

  431
  That may be to the advantage of his constituents, of mine or of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, but what will people say in a coherent Norwegian society which is predicated on the status quo? What will happen? I put that as a question. What would happen the other way round? What about the different social support systems in that part of the world and here?
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Norway and the other EFTA countries should be allowed to enter the European economic area while maintaining state aid and trade barriers? They would then be able to retain jobs in their countries at the expense of Britain and other member countries by hiding behind trade barriers, which we do not have. Would that not be bad for jobs?
  Mr. Spearing: I was expressing a point of view. I was trying to point out some of the problems that may arise. There may be problems and dilemmas that have not yet been sufficiently addressed. Conservative Members, and especially the Minister, have assumed that, the bigger and wider the market, the fewer barriers—which some people might call protection—there would be. Harold Wilson spoke of one man's protection being another man's freedom. It is assumed that taking down all the protections and having a giant economic machine will give everybody more universal benefits. That is the macro-assumption behind the whole of the single market.
  Mr. Bell indicated assent.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend nods.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: That is the idea.
  Mr. Spearing: Of course. However, there may be unexpected or predictable side effects as I have just explained, especially when centuries of tradition and centuries of assumption have been built up by communities which have been in place for a long time.
  Another question is the relationship between the Baltic states—Sweden and Finland—with the mainland Baltic states on the other side of that sea. My understanding of history and of trade is that there was a great deal of commonality among the Baltic states, including those in eastern Europe, in trade, in culture and in contact. There are trade arrangements and movement arrangements. How will that mesh with the demands of the treaty of Oporto? Those questions should be asked at this stage and should be answered.
  I now come to the all-important question about the political and legal relationships between the EEA and the EC in its central market function. I intervened in the Minister's speech a little earlier on that. Three new institutions will act as couplings between the six EEA countries jointly and the rest of the EC. There will be a Council of Ministers of the EEA, which I suspect will act in a double capacity. It will meet the Community by means of meeting some people from the Commission.
  Oh yes, I have no doubt that, as the Minister said, there will be other connections as well. However, it will be the Commission with which the Council of Ministers will tie in primarily, and I believe that that is written into the treaty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough has already addressed the question of decision-making. Who will decide what the treaty means? I presume that it will not
  432
  be the International Court of Justice under the Vienna convention, although the treaty is probably registered as an international treaty, because the treaty says that we shall have to set up special machinery. The rules of the single market are made by the European Court in Luxembourg. The court will be the interpreter of the rules of the single market when it is enlarged.
  Of course, the EFTA countries do not have political control because they have not signed any of the EC treaties, either the treaty of Rome or its successors. They do not intend to sign those yet, although they may consider doing so later. So we have to set up the surveillance body, which has pretty big powers. I quoted the details of one of its powers in respect of state aid. The surveillance body will give opinions, it will police the treaty and it will see how the treaty works out.
  There will then be another court between the two groups of countries. The EEA treaty court will, in the end, have to accept what the court in Luxembourg says are the terms of the single market. The connections will be tenuous at a political level, but very strong at a legal level.
  Dr. Godman: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the European Court of Justice will become a supreme court over the whole membership of the EEA, and that the EEA court will seek opinions from the European Court of Justice?
  Mr. Spearing: I think that we need confirmation of that point from the Minister. I have expressed my understanding of what will happen, either de jure or de facto. Bearing in mind the economic strength of the partnerships concerned, if it is not de jure, it may well be de facto.
  The whole of the single market and its institutions form, by definition, an authoritarian organisation, as they must do if they are to fulfil the purposes of the treaties. The provisions will be extended into a geographical and social area where they are least applicable. Those who will be subject to them will find all the disadvantages that we have found in this country. I include even those who welcomed membership; I am not talking about those who may not have done.
  We can learn something about the real nature of the European Economic Community and about union by having a look at the effects of the treaties on our northern neighbours in western Europe.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: One feels nostalgic about having another of these debates and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). If there is one criticism to be levelled at the Euro-realists, who opposed the Maastricht treaty, which I take seriously, it is that we must not live too much in despair. There is too much lamenting the Community as it is and not enough travelling in hope for the future.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) showed an attitude that I shall attempt to emulate. I have great admiration for my right hon. Friend, who has given me much advice since I entered the House. I may have been referred to as a man without a father, but my right hon. Friend has been to me a father figure.
  The agreement is an important step towards the objective enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which he described as variable geometry. We

  433
  have created in the Maastricht treaty, if the opt-outs actually work, a Community of at least two tiers. By this agreement to create the European economic area, the treaty of Oporto, we are creating a three-tier, three-speed Community, which is surely a step in the direction of the Government's stated policy.
  However, we must ensure that the agreement respects the individual sovereignty of the EFTA states. I share the endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North of the article in The Economist by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in which he said that the nation state is here to stay. That is an immutable fact which the architects of the European Community have tended to ignore. The Government must be the champion of the nascent members of the EEA. We must stand by their individuality and their limited exemptions from the acquis communautaire of the Community because therein lies the danger.
  I want to analyse the relationship between the legal entity of the EFTA states and the Community and to shed light on the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Protocol 35, the "Sole Article" states:
  "For cases of possible conflicts between implemented EEA rules and other statutory provisions, the EFTA States undertake to introduce, if necessary, a statutory provision to the effect that EEA rules prevail in these cases."
  Analogous to the treaty of Rome in respect of the EC member states, here is the supremacy of the Oporto treaty over the law of the EFTA member states.
  Articles 105 and 106 deal with the homogeneity of interpretations in respect of the relationship between the EEA Court and the European Court of Justice. The EEA Joint Committee is assigned the task of constant review of the case law of the ECJ and the EFTA court to keep interpretation of the EEA consistent. When the interpretations differ the Joint Committee may settle the question or, where the question is one of interpretation of an EC provision, the Joint Committee may ask the ECJ for a definitive ruling.
  In other words, the ECJ is the final arbiter of interpretation of EC provisions and may overrule the EFTA Court interpretations of EC rules. However, it would appear that if the disagreement is not over an EC rule, but over the interpretation of an EEA agreement, the EEA Joint Committee must make the decision about interpretation. Any such decisions made by the EEA Joint Committee will apply throughout the EEA, but will not affect the case law of the ECJ in relation to protocol 48.
  The importance of that is that it appears that by acceding to the EEA agreement the EFTA countries are acceding to the entire acquis communautaire of the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act. Their only exemptions are those specifically granted to them and it is instructive to glance at the treaty of Oporto because its prose and structure have a deadly ring of familiarity, as they are the same as those in the treaty of Rome.
  We must not forget that it is the acquis communautaire, the structure of the Community, which in the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been
  "invading the nooks and crannies of our daily lives".
  Unless we succeed in making the EEA agreement change the nature of the European Community as we know and
  434
  love it today, the enlargement of the Community that we are seeking will not achieve our hoped for objective of decentralising the Community.
  I want to refer briefly to free movement. While I understand that this issue is not covered by the portfolio of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology who is currently on the Front Bench, perhaps he can tell me what effect the free movement provisions in the EEA agreement will have on our potential dispute with the European Court in respect of the free movement of people within the Community at the moment. Do the Government still stand by our right to check the passport of every person entering and leaving the United Kingdom to check that non-EC nationals are not entering the country illegally?
  I want now to refer briefly to the expense of the cohesion fund. If the new cohesion fund which is to be set up under the EEA is to be part of our policy of enlarging the Community, there is here surely another element of subsidy and intervention which will not help our cause in Europe.
  There are no opt-outs for the EFTA countries from the social provisions of the Single European Act. Therefore, in respect of our disputes with the Community on social affairs, we might find ourselves not just one against 11, but one against 13, 15 or however many EFTA countries join.
  The only opt-outs relate to fisheries and agricultural policies. In that respect, instead of an improvement in many EEA countries, they will be more heavily subsidised and more protected in agriculture than currently in the European Community. Again, that is hardly progress towards reforming agricultural policy in the direction that we want.
  Nevertheless, it is a step towards enlargement. We must hope that the EFTA countries do not become so appalled by the intrusive nature and expense of the regulation and imposition of the acquis communautaire that they are driven away from membership of the European Community and so cannot join to help us decentralise.
  As the Bill is clearly a step in the direction of enlargement and as, by the very nature of nation states, there is a wish to retain sovereignty in the long term, and because I have faith in the overall sense of the European people, I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will help us to move towards our cause of decentralisation, if only because the friction created between member states by the misplaced ambitions of the bureaucrats who attempt to impose their uniformity over the continent is bound to fail. I therefore strongly support the Bill.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the Bill. It is interesting to put down a marker by stating that, before we joined the European Community, we were a member of EFTA. It is appropriate to recognise that the gulf which was created by the exit of three members is now being substantially, if not totally, bridged by the creation of the European economic area. Indeed, it may be substantially further bridged if the applications of the four EFTA members go forward for full membership. This is the right way to proceed.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) might be surprised to learn that I agree that one of the welcome points is that the proposal strengthens the

  435
  northern contribution of the European Community in European thinking and it introduces different strands of thought with which we should be glad to join forces.
  Speaking as a Member who represents a Scottish constituency, I have to say that we have established links with Scandinavian countries. However, there are also barriers which the Bill will begin to erode. In that context, the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) identified an area which is potentially of very important and practical benefit to my constituents who work in the Norwegian sector of the North sea, and others who would like to but who have found themselves excluded. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has left the Chamber, seems to be more concerned about the interests of the Norwegians than about the interests of the Scots and the British. That is taking nobility and altruism just a little far.
  In terms of direct contributions to the budget, the EFTA countries will be net contributors to the tune of 145 million ecu per annum. While some may believe that those countries will add to our burden by joining, in reality they will help to lower our burden. However, we must then consider what motivates those countries.
  One motivation is that membership provides access to, or an opportunity to bid for, common research funding. The main reason why those countries wish to join is that membership is likely to lead to an enlargement of their trade potential and an increase in their gross national product. That will help to fund their large social programmes—it is the net benefit that they hope to achieve.
  This is a two-way process, of course. It gives us access to these countries' markets, and them access to ours. According to an independent analysis, published and placed in the Library, the net effect on the European Community is minimal. But the benefit likely to accrue to the EFTA countries could be considerable. It is estimated that their output in tradeable goods could increase by 2·9 per cent. I accept that these forecasts are just estimates, and such benefits do not always materialise, but in the long term there is no doubt that the European Community has led to a net increase of economic output which it is unlikely would have been achieved if the member states had remained independent, dealing without the benefits of co-operation.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman seems, so knowledgable about all these things, will he help Members who do not know as much as he does by giving us some broad examples of what the EFTA countries, which freely trade now, will get from the agreement? Will a huge new area of trade be opened up to them?
  Mr. Bruce: It is not a matter of tariff barriers, which do not exist even now. It is the non-tariff barriers that should be removed. One should not underestimate the extent to which they can be a restraint on trade—I am talking about technical specifications and internal agreements. This will not happen overnight; it will happen because of the collision of two market systems. I am in no better position to make predictions than any other independent assessor, but there is plenty of evidence for what I say. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T.
  436
  Taylor), representing a party that claims to believe in free markets, does not accept that benefits will flow from free trade and from exposure to best practice in other markets.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is not the whole purpose of these countries joining the very opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is saying? It is not that they are going to gain any trade—that trade already takes place. Their fear is that if they do not join they will thereafter be excluded from markets with which they have already been trading. That is one of the great problems. After all, some of these nations have much higher social costs than some of the EC nations.
  Mr. Bruce: I reject that argument. I do not believe it, any more than I ever believed that this country joined the EC for fear of being excluded. That was certainly not why I campaigned to stay in the Community when others wanted us to stay out of it. I did so because I firmly believed that our economic and political destiny lay in open frontiers and markets, and in the greater freedom to be had from political, economic and cultural association. I firmly believe in the positive aspirations of most of the EFTA countries. They want to be part of such an association, to ensure that the Community builds on it and develops the sort of political and economic framework of which they want to be a part—not because they fear exclusion, but because they positively want to participate.
  I readily concede that the equilibrium is not satisfactory, however. This arrangement can only be transitional—a halfway house. These countries are contributing to a budget for assistance which will not benefit their own populations. They are excluding themselves from the common agricultural and common fisheries policies. They are not full members of the Community.
  More to the point, although the countries in question will have the right to negotiate and influence decision making in the EC as it affects the EEA, they will not have voting rights. That is likely to lead in time to the recognition that being full members is better than being associate members, so that they can play their full part in the process.
  I wholly accept the argument that we need to reform the structures of the Community to make it less bureaucratic, more open and more democratic. The countries of EFTA have a great contribution to make to improving the democratic structures of the EC.
  Dr. Godman: Is the hon. Gentleman of the view that Norway will proceed smoothly from what he calls a halfway house to full membership of the EC? If he is, may I point out to him that many people living in northern Norwegian fishing communities feel growing concern about the implications of full membership, and especially about adopting the common fisheries policy?
  Mr. Bruce: My honest answer is—the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear it—that it will not be a smooth, easy transition. Indeed, Norway's last attempt to join the Community did not end in success. I used to work for a Norwegian company. I have visited the country and I have many friends there, and I am well aware of the tensions in Norway and of its desire to preserve its distinctive way of life. Norway has the advantage of large oil and gas reserves and a small population. That gives it a degree of freedom

  437
  that it might not otherwise have. I suspect that the Norwegians' attitude might have been slightly different had they not discovered those reserves.
  The referendum in Switzerland went dead against the wishes of the Government there. I agree with some of the comments made by Tory Eurosceptics about that. We cannot simply proceed at breakneck speed with these changes without carrying the people with us. Doing so in the past has been a mistake. A referendum is only a contribution, not a definitive answer. There still have to be leadership, vision and decisions, not all of which can be determined by referendums. I do not deny that they can play a part, but they do not always solve the problems.
  The referendum in Switzerland created a vacuum and no one knows the way forward now. The Swiss Government have said, "The people have decided on something with which we do not agree and which we do not think is in their national interests—and for which we have no alternative policy." The people have rejected their Government's policy, but no one has any idea what to do next. That is democracy, but it does not solve the problems. Indeed, it can add to them, and then politicians have to deal with them.
  Whether the economic benefits materialise or not, this is not merely an economic enterprise. There are economic benefits, and co-operation certainly helps to improve the quality of life, the scale of innovation and the degree of human advance. But this is also a political venture. Although it may move in lurches and require reassessment from time to time, the process should not be derailed just because we face the difficulties of recession, of German reunification—we are all paying the price for that—and of enlarging the Community.
  My party and I do not see the Community just as a club for the rich which should exclude the aspiring democratic nations of eastern Europe. Nor are we in favour of those who want to use the disparity in Europe as an excuse for making no progress or trying to turn the clock back. We must strive to find ways of narrowing the gaps and of creating diversity in the Community so that it can accommodate these new democratic nations.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is that why the hon. Gentleman's party dropped the word "federal" at its conference last month?
  Mr. Bruce: We did not. I have campaigned for a federal United Kingdom, never mind a federal Europe, for a long time. Extraordinarily enough, some Members seem to think that Britain is a paragon of democracy, sensitivity and political consultation—unlike those wicked European bureaucratic, dictatorial and dogmatic countries—but I travel widely in those countries, so I know that there is a great deal more democracy in some member states than there is in this country, especially in terms of how the practical decisions that affect people's daily lives are made. We have a lot to learn. Such practical decision making is a feature of the Scandinavian countries, which are the Bill's prime concern. That is one reason why I welcome their closer involvement in the Community.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) spoke about what he called the Brixton manifesto. His extract from the Prime Minister's statement did not amount to a vision. The Prime Minister seems to have severe astigmatism in this area because, while he seems
  438
  anxious to move towards greater European cohesion, he is trying to ensure that there is sufficient diversity and resistance to change to enable him to reassure the sceptics in his party that it will not make too much difference.
  There must be a full and honest recognition that moving forward and enlarging the Community creates difficulties and challenges. We must accept that there is a need to reduce bureaucracy and improve consultation and democracy, and that the objective is to try to ensure that the Community can accommodate a greater diversity of ideas, peoples and countries at different stages of development. That is good and desirable.
  The difference between my party and some of the sceptics is that we genuinely want to move in that direction, whereas they want to use that as an excuse to reverse the process. We support the Bill because it is a move in the right direction and because we hope that it will lead to enlargement of the Community.
  6.40 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that it would be a mistake to regard the EC as a rich man's club. Most of the EC states are bankrupt and covered in unemployment, and Europe's share of world trade is going down and down. Those basic factors should be considered by the Government and the Euro-enthusiasts.
  In this EC debate, the House is virtually empty: no one wants to hear and no one wants to listen. No one wants to face the fact that the EC is in an appalling economic mess and that unemployment is getting out of control. Those who still live in daydream land should wake up to the brutal facts about what is happening in western Europe and what has happened as a result of decisions made by the House.
  Although we should be trying to make friends in the debate, I am afraid that I disagree with the fundamental principle advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He said that we should be thinking about how to get these nice countries from northern Europe to join so that we can somehow make the Community better. My right hon. Friend gives such wonderful speeches that I usually applaud, but this one seemed to display a kind of selfishness. It was like saying, "We have joined a rotten club which is full of fraudsters and drunks. The way to improve it is to ask four nice people to join, so that somehow this rotten club, which is sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will become better."
  We should hope that the poor, wonderful people of Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Finland will not have to subject themselves to the loss of freedom, misery and all the horrendous economic consequences of EC membership. It would be dreadful to say to those countries, "Please come in to try to make things better for us." We should tell them that in their own interests they should stay out. People should wake up to what is happening.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Perhaps we should not be telling those countries anything. They applied to join the Community under their own terms. Austria applied in 1989, and Finland and many other EFTA countries have applied to join the Community.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister is right, but unfortunately he is taking advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is usually two years out of date. I accept that some countries were enthusiastic to join, but what has happened in the interim? Switzerland has said, "Go and jump." Norway has just had an election, and I wish that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would tell the Minister what happened. There was a massive victory for the parties that said that they wanted nothing to do with the EC. A recent opinion poll in Norway showed that 58 per cent. of its people were totally opposed to getting involved in any way with the EC and that 32 per cent. were in favour. That shows the problem with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  The Prime Minister has appealed to us to work together and to be unified, but today the Foreign Office published a document listing what it called Euro-myths and Euro-lunacies. One of the lunacies that it listed was about the average family spending £1,000 a year more on food. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a wonderful man who knows how to add figures, published a document last week which stated that the average family had to spend £24 a week extra on food. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office says that it is lunacy to say that the figure is £20 a week. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office must start to work with the rest of the Government to achieve the Prime Minister's objective of getting us all working together. That is the context in which we should be examining the Bill.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: My intervention relates to the hon. Gentleman's preceding point. Does he not realise that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been more cunning than he gives it credit for? In getting such an appalling deal for British fishing, and in its usual sycophantic deference to other fishing nations in negotiating the treaty, it has given a marvellous weapon to those people, especially in Norway, who want to keep their country out. It has agreed to give Spanish fishermen in that predatory Spanish fishing fleet a quota of about 30,000 tonnes, which is three times our catch in Norwegian waters. That Spanish fleet has no historic record in that area, but it is getting the quota in return for catches made in our waters and fish marketed in our markets. Can the hon. Gentleman think of anything better calculated to turn the Norwegians against the whole treaty than that piece of Foreign Office incompetence?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree. If the Norwegians have any doubts, they should talk to our fishermen. They should ask them, "Where is all this opportunity, and where is the glorious triumph that access to European waters will give us?" They should ask what has happened to the percentage of the fish that are caught by British fishermen, and about their freedom when the European courts decide that Spanish fishermen are somehow British. They should not go to the Foreign Office but should talk to the fishermen and to other people. I believe that that is what they are doing because they are waking up.
  The Bill would probably make sense if we expected all the EFTA countries to join the EC next year. We are asking them to abide by about 65 per cent. of the acquis communautaire laws, and to pay piles of cash into the EC. If they were about to join, that would make sense, because it would be a kind of stepping stone to full membership. But, of course, the people in EFTA have woken up. They
  440
  have looked at Europe and seen the economic misery from which we are suffering, the bureaucracy, the loss of freedom and the fraud, and they do not want to join at all.
  I do not think that any EFTA Government will be able to persuade their Parliament to join. If that is true, is it fair and reasonable for us to go ahead with the treaty? The treaty will impose on those unfortunate countries piles of measures that they will have no part in deciding. For example, the social policy on page 212 has piles of measures attached. Those countries will have to apply them, and they should ask themselves why they should have to do that to have free trade when they have that now. Why should they have to adopt all the education, training and vocation policies on page 211 and all the environment policies on page 210? But they will have to do that. Is it fair and reasonable to say to those countries that they will have to do that to ensure free trade?
  What about the cash? The Minister of State gave what I thought was wonderful news when he said that Northern Ireland would get cohesion fund money, but I have been told that it will not get any such money. Now we hear that a second cohesion fund is being set up with EFTA money and that Northern Ireland will get some of it. What advantages will membership confer on the EFTA countries? They will get no more than what they have now, but because we have gone ahead with our single market and all its bureaucracy, we are saying to them. "If you want to keep that, mates, you will have to go ahead." There will be some transitional advantages, such as a little bit on banking and, I am told, something on insurance.
  I shall describe to the Minister a test case. As well as being a Member of Parliament I am a major business man and tycoon—the House is probably not aware of that. I happen to be the director of a Swedish company called Ansvar (Temperance) Insurance. It is one of the greatest companies in the world. It is an international company which sells insurance only to total abstainers from alcohol.
  How will Ansvar be helped by the Bill? We trade freely in the Republic of Ireland. It is a wonderful country for abstainers from alcohol. We make lots of money. The only country where we have had to close is a place called Germany, which has things called Lander. The Lander make business impossible. They said that our brass plate was the wrong size. They have all sorts of silly rules. We have transferred to a local agency which is working quite well.
  Ansvar is a test case. How will that great Swedish company benefit from the Bill? It will be subject to new rules and regulations. We are saying to EFTA countries, "If you want to carry on as you are doing now, you must give us cash and accept masses of laws and rules." It is not a good bargain for them.
  My next point is about Euro-scroungers. I am doubtful about going ahead with the Bill following the dramatic speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at the party conference. I know that few members of the Conservative party appeared to attend the conference. I came to my office during the conference. There seemed to be more Conservative Members in the Norman Shaw building than at the conference. I can understand why. However, if Conservative Members had attended the conference, they would have heard a fantastic speech from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. He said that the Euro-scrounging would stop.

  441
  I have seen a wonderful pamphlet around Florence university entitled "Mrs. Thatcher is like a mother to me." It explains how people can come over here and have their holiday paid for by the Government. I do not know how the Secretary of State intends to stop it. As I understand it from the Commission, the only people who can be stopped are those who have been found guilty of murder or manslaughter. The alternative is to change the law so that no one can receive social security payments until he or she has been around for five weeks. That would mean that our own people would starve in consequence.
  If the Bill is passed, we shall have more Euro-scrounging. It is not just my talk. It is in black and white. The money resolution and the guidance on money suggest that there will be far more Euro-scrounging. Exactly how much there will be cannot be estimated. A figure of £1 million is suggested for insurance, and social security is only mentioned. I should like to know what the Government will do if there is more Euro-scrounging. I support the Government's position on Euro-scrounging, but they should tell us how they intend to stop it. It would help a great deal if we had some idea how holiday scrounging will be stopped before EFTA-scrounging is added to it.
  The next point is a difficult one. Gibraltar is not mentioned in the treaty so one might wonder how we can refer to it. However, sadly the Bill will have a pretty nasty effect on Gibraltar. Gibraltar is a great place. Its people have stood firm by this country. They have tried hard to be part of the European Community. The treaty says on pages 465 and 469 that the banks of Liechtenstein will have access to the United Kingdom market. The sad fact is that Gibraltar's banks will not have such access. The reason is complicated.
  The Minister sent me a lovely fax today when he heard that I intended to mention Gibraltar. The Minister recognised that the problem was serious. He said that it should be possible to table an amendment to deal with the problem. I tried hard to do so, but sadly the Clerks told me to get lost and that it could not be done. Gibraltar has suffered a great deal. It is the only part of the EC that cannot send people to the European Parliament. It would not do Gibraltar much good if it could because no one would notice. If the European Parliament closed down tomorrow, only the taxi drivers of Strasbourg would notice.
  Gibraltarians do not have free movement in Spain. They are subject to bureaucratic restrictions. Gibraltar is a lovely place. I have been there twice on holiday. It could not be a nicer place. Aeroplanes have to fly miles out of the way to land at Gibraltar airport because the Spaniards will not allow them to fly through Spanish air space. It is the only airport in Europe which is not protected by some organisation. The Spanish Government compromised by saying that if the airport put up a Spanish as well as a British flag, everything would be well. However, the poor old Gibraltarians, understandably, did not want to do that.
  In a recent referendum the Gibraltarians decided by more than 12,000 votes to 45 that they wanted to remain linked to Britain. The Government simply must do something about banking before the Bill is passed. The Bill will make matters an awful lot worse. In his fax, the Minister set out how the Gibraltarians had done everything
  442
  that the Government had asked them to do. They changed their laws exactly in accordance with Euro-rules. They went out of their way. However, sadly, it seems that because of the silly Spaniards, everything that the Government tried to do was blocked. At one point, the Government said that the problem could be solved; then they said that it could not.
  The Bill will damage EFTA countries and add to their expense and bureaucracy. Everyone seems to want to do it. But please can we do something for Gibraltar? Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EC purposes. The provisions of article 227(4) of the treaty make it clear that they should have the same rights as everyone else. They do not.
  Is it sensible that we should pass a Bill that imposes extra bureaucratic controls and expenses on free countries without achieving a great deal for them? Could the Government clarify what they intend to do about Euro-scroungers before we create more of them? Could we do something for Gibraltar? We sometimes laugh at these matters. The Gibraltarians are good, decent, respectable people. They wave the Union Jack. They feel British. They are saying, "Who will speak for us?" They cannot speak for themselves. They do not have a representative on the Council of Ministers. Only the British Government can speak for them and protect them.
  It is easy for the Foreign Office to forget Gibraltar when it is doing dirty deals in the EC and wants Spanish votes. We have an obligation to protect Gibraltar. No one else can do it. The Government must go out of their way to sort out the problems of the airport and of banking. Gibraltar does not want privileges. It does not want stupid grants and loans. It merely wants the same freedom as other parts of the EC. It wants its banks to have the freedom to operate in the same way as the banks of Liechtenstein. That seems fair and reasonable.
  I know that the Minister is a decent fellow. He is a fair, reasonable and patriotic person. It is a joy to have him here instead of some of the funny people from the Foreign Office team who are now happily no longer part of the Government. It is also a joy to have a nice Whip on the Bench instead of the fat thugs who use obscenities. So we have a nice Minister, a nice Whip, a nice Parliamentary Private Secretary and a happy atmosphere. Therefore, let us try to do a good job for Gibraltar, for freedom and for Britain. Let us hope that the good people of the EFTA countries will know that it is in their interest not to get involved in the nonsense of the EC, even though my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North has tried to tempt them in. They should look at what we have suffered and what the French have suffered. They should keep their liberty and they should not let themselves down.
  6.58 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is always a pleasure to listen to the nice Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) make a characteristically nice speech.
  I begin by asking the Minister what appears to be a parochial question. Is he aware that at present the Norwegian state shipbuilding subsidy is about 14 per cent.? Is it likely to be reduced to the level of the subsidy given by the European Community seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund? The gap between the

  443
  two subsidies places the few British shipyards that are still in existence at a distinct disadvantage when pursuing orders from Norwegian shipowners.
  I would like to hear the Minister's response to that question. Will the Norwegian shipbuilding intervention subsidy be reduced to the European subsidies of 9 per cent. and 4 per cent. respectively, depending on the size of the contract?
  I would like to respond to a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). First, I echo his welcome to the countries which may well obtain membership of the EC, and especially the Scandinavian countries. I shall respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the concept of subsidiarity in a moment or two.
  I have a great deal of respect and affection for the Scandinavian people. I first came across the people of Norway when I was an 11-year-old schoolboy, and 'was foolish enough to stow away on board a trawler that fished off northern Norway for three weeks. At the time, I bitterly regretted the youthful decision, but it brought me into contact for the first time with the fishing communities of northern Norway. I can well understand why they have such deep reservations concerning Norway's membership of the European Community. The hon. Member for Southend, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to those concerns earlier. The fishing communities are deeply worried about what will happen to the stocks upon which they are so dependent once the Spanish and others get in among them. I can well understand those concerns.
  I bitterly regret the decision by the Norwegian Government to encourage the resumption of whaling, and that explains my reasoned amendment, which was not accepted, about the abolition of whaling. I would say to the fine people of Norway that, if their country becomes a member of the EC, they will have to accept the abolition of whaling.
  That point was made recently by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was commenting on the EC convention on international trade in endangered species. He said:
  "the cumulative effect of the agreements is a whaling ban in Community waters. There is no other way to interpret them. When Norway comes into the Community, it seems to me inconceivable that the Community would wish to relax that ban. Therefore, Norway has just applied to join an organisation that bans whaling."
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the predatory activities of the massive Spanish fleet, which must be now the biggest fishing fleet in the EC and which operates in a largely uncontrolled fashion, are transferred to Norwegian waters, it will be to the discredit of all European fishing nations? The consequences would fall on British fishermen. Humberside fishermen, for instance, historically have always fished in Norwegian waters. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the reactions, exclusions and difficulties will fall on us rather than on the Spanish fishermen, and that that will create a state of friction between our fishermen and the Norwegians?
  Dr. Godman: I have every sympathy for what my hon. Friend says. We tend to forget that fishing, in addition to being a hunting activity, is in every sense an economic activity. Communities such as the one represented so ably by my hon. Friend can suffer because of such agreements.
  444
  I do not wish to sound chauvinistic, but the Spanish fishing interests can behave appallingly badly with regard to the regulation and surveillance of fishing activities. In Vigo, for example, there is a type of insurance club which takes contributions from the owners and the skippers of vessels. The club assists with the payment of fines when, as is inevitable, one of the skippers is caught fishing illegally. No matter what the Minister may say about the evening-out of differences between nations, there are groups which will continue to work fiddles.
  My hon. Friend is also correct when he talks about our historic tradition of fishing in Norwegian waters, while the Spanish have little or no history of fishing those waters. They, not British fishermen, are the beneficiaries of protocol 9 in the agreement.
  I will respond in passing to a comment by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North concerning subsidiarity. I would love to see a democratic interpretation of article 3(b) of the Maastricht treaty after November 1, which would devolve power, not only away from Brussels, but from London to Edinburgh and down to regional and local government. I believe that I am right in saying that after November 1, article 3(b) will become, in every sense of the word, justiciable. The European Court of Justice will, sooner or later, offer its opinion or a series of opinions on the application of that article among member states.
  I would like to suggest to the Minister that the Bill be referred to a Special Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 91. So many implications for our constituents are contained in the Bill that it would be worth while to allow a Special Standing Committee to take evidence over four sittings from Foreign Office and other Ministers. They could deal with some of the concerns that have been voiced in tonight's debate.
  It is fair to say that the House has not scrutinised the agreement in a formal or rigorous way. The Select Committee on European Community Legislation was prevented from carrying out that task by its terms of reference. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has not reported to the House on the agreement, so this is literally the first examination of the agreement that has taken place.
  Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in view of what the Prime Minister said on the importance of scrutiny in an article in The Economist on 25 September. The article, I was glad to note, effectively paid tribute to the Maastricht debate.
  The Select Committee on Trade and Industry should be studying the agreement. I made some suggestions that the Committee might try to have a full look at the agreement in relation to the single market. Suddenly, however, we had the embarrassment of the pit closure fiasco, a result of which was that the Committee was not able to give the time that the subject required.
  Let us hope that the Committee can have another look at the implications of the single market in the light of the Oporto agreement. I am certain that there are matters in the agreement which no hon. Member will have had an opportunity to look at in the depth that is required. The Select Committee should have a good look at the agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
  Dr. Godman: I do indeed. I think that it would be very useful if that Select Committee examined the agreement in some detail. I am not for one moment suggesting that the

  445
  proceedings of a Special Standing Committee would be an adequate substitute for the kind of rigorous analysis that could be brought to bear on such a document by a Select Committee and its specialist advisers, not least because—I think that I am right in saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a Special Standing Committee can have only four morning sittings. The members of such a Committee—I hasten to point out to the Whip on the Opposition Front Bench that I am not volunteering my services—could cross-examine the Law Officers on the relationship between the European Economic Area Court and the European Court of Justice.
  The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) quoted articles 108 and 109 of the agreement, which to some extent refer to that relationship between the two courts. I should have thought that, if a person or a company is deeply unhappy about a judgment reached by the European Economic Area Court, he or it should have the right to appeal that decision and seek an opinion from the European Court of Justice as a supreme court. The Special Standing Committee procedure would allow for questions of that nature to be answered by Law Officers.
  I can envisage a potentially turbulent relationship developing between the two courts. I think that I am also right in saying that, after 1 November, an individual will have the right under the Maastricht treaty to take his or her Government to court if he or she believes that they have failed to protect his or her interests vis-a-vis EC legislation. An individual may be able to argue such a case in terms of the failure of the EEA court to protect such interests.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was absolutely right about the need to iron out some of the existing discrepancies in the offshore oil and gas industries. The hon. Gentleman may well have a few constituents working in the Norwegian sector, but it will be only a few, because it is exceedingly difficult for United Kingdom nationals to find work in that sector. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that, under the agreement, such discrimination will be illegal.
  As regards protocol 9, what protection is afforded to the Scottish salmon industry in respect of the subsidies given to the Norwegian industry? Not so very long ago, we had the terrible experience of the Norwegians dumping farmed salmon on the market in European Community countries. The European Commission took defensive measures to protect those working in the Scottish salmon industry. Presumably, under protocol 9, the Norwegians will not have to face such defensive mechanisms. These are important matters to the people working in that industry, many of whom live in remote communities where there are no alternative employment opportunities. I ask the Minister to assure me that, in matters of employment and the use of vessels, no discrimination will be exercised against United Kingdom nationals.
  Following what I said in response to the speech by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, I am fairly relaxed about our bringing the Scandinavian countries into the relationship. I think that the European Community will benefit from their involvement. As the House of Commons research paper suggests, the agreement is very much in the Scandinavian countries' interests, being a staging post on the road to full membership of the Community. It may well be, however, that for the foreseeable future, the Norwegian
  446
  people will chose to stay outwith the European Community. That would be a matter of deep regret for all of us as the Norwegians and the other Scandinavian countries would strengthen the EC in numerous ways.
  As I said, my view is that the Bill should be committed to a Special Standing Committee.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. William Cash: I have found the Bill and the agreement extremely difficult, for a number of reasons. I have the gravest reservations about what is effectively the stepson of Maastricht. The agreement sets out to provide for free trading arrangements but, if we dig a little deeper—underneath the mass of verbiage that the Oporto agreement contains and the density of the Bill—we find that two things are happening at the same time: the EFTA states are, almost without exception, applying to join the European Community, yet on the other hand popular opinion in those other countries is moving against the proposals.
  We have already had the Swiss example. In France, 58 per cent. of people are now against Maastricht. If the referendum had been held a year later, Maastricht would be dead and buried. In Germany, the figure is probably running at 70 to 75 per cent. against, and in the United Kingdom it is approximately the same. In Spain, the Partido Popular has the gravest reservations. In Bavaria, Mr. Stoiber is strongly against the whole process of further economic and monetary union and will have a huge tussle with Mr. Theo Weigal, who is also a member of CSU. Meanwhile, all levels of government in Germany are up for election next year. The whole process is in the balance, and the Maastricht debate has moved substantially in the direction of the Euro-realists, for which we can all be thankful.
  Notwithstanding all that, I am a single market enthusiast. I believe, as I did when I voted for the Single European Act in 1986, much to the surprise of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), that it is essential to try to reduce barriers and at the same time create more reasonable and fair competition between member states. One of my greatest worries about the operation of the single market is that it has become increasingly evident that greater opportunities for trade have not materialised, just as the common agricultural policy has not given the British farmer a better deal.
  A kind of schizophrenia runs through the debate. On the one hand, we hear promises such as that given by the Prime Minister at the party conference and in the article in The Economist, which provide us with a degree of optimism—which I should be happy to endorse. On the other hand, there is evidence that people—whether in the EFTA countries or in the EC—do not want the arrangements that are being proposed. At the same time, we have to consider the performance of the Community, with its fraud and corruption, and the increasing desire of the federalists to move forward—I suppose at the 29 October summit.
  Chancellor Kohl has said that the only way to avoid war in Europe is by deeper political union. That is a significant statement, made by the Chancellor of Germany at the same time as it was agreed to move the capital of Germany to Berlin by the year 2000. We need a dose of reality, but it is not right to prevent an opportunity for greater competition from being realised. I certainly have

  447
  reservations about the way in which the single market is operating. I am deeply worried about the 13th state—the new bureaucracy which I see weaving its way through the Oporto agreement. All the Commission directives, the Council directives—
  Sir Teddy Taylor: And the quangos.
  Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend says, quangos and directives are increasing, with greater power going to the centre.
  I also have grave reservations about the hope—if I may call it that—expressed in the most interesting speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) that the Bill would provide more diversity and a more loose, enlarged European Community working in our direction. I would like that to be the objective of the Bill and I genuinely believe that the Government think that the enlargement process under the Oporto agreement would provide more diversity and greater flexibility in the European Community.
  However, I do not think that the Bill will have that effect. We must remember that, irrespective of the views of people in the member states, their Governments have applied to join the full European Community. The acquis communautaire would be further endorsed by a further step under the Maastricht treaty, creating a consolidated legal framework that many of us believe will destroy the European Community and may have a serious adverse effect on the EFTA countries.
  Conflict between the European Court of Justice and proposals for an EFTA court was resolved in favour of the European Court simply because the acquis communautaire includes the assumption that the treaty of Rome, the single market and all the attendant rights, liabilities and obligations will be resolved by the superior Court of Justice. A single market in, for example, competition law cannot operate on the basis of a "pick and choose" legal system. If there is to be one consistent body of law, it will have to be the European Court of Justice.
  If all the Council directives covered by the Bill were stacked together in volumes, they would stretch from where I am to the Box at the end of the Chamber. It is a fantastic operation. In a rather curmudgeonly way, I must congratulate the genius of the bureaucrats on being able to produce anything as complex and obscure as this. Another reason for my reservations is that I have not had the opportunity to read the Bill to the extent that I was able to read the Maastricht treaty, yet the Bill is much bigger. I do not believe that the EFTA countries have the faintest idea what it will mean.
  If we are optimistic and all the promises are fulfilled—we shall be watching with great care over the next few months—we may be about to create a huge opportunity for a more diversified European Community. That is the hope of the growing number of Euro-realists on the Conservative Benches. However, the Bill represents an underlying political agenda—a stepping stone to a cohesive European union, which is seen by some of our Ministers as a means of preventing the unitary state that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and some of his fellow travellers would like to achieve.
  The temperate and carefully worded speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North seemed a serious attempt to bridge some of those gaps, in the hope
  448
  that we would not lose too much by agreeing to the Bill. Serious practical problems may affect us. For example, increased environmental standards and the manner in which they are applied to, for example, the manufacture of cars, may cost our manufacturing industry dearly.
  It is rather like when we were invited to agree to the exchange rate mechanism. We were told that it would help to bring down inflation and many promises were made, but some of us had grave reservations. When it became apparent that it was a pig in a poke, some of us grew more determined to try to stop it in its tracks. Alas, it went on until the Government were forced out of the mechanism. I hope that the Bill will not lead us into a more bureaucratic, legalistic European Community. I also hope that the political agenda underpinning the Bill, which does not have the support of people in the EFTA countries, will not leave us regretting passing the Bill, if and when we do.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Everyone was interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) because he has been a consistent critic of the Common Market—except during his period as a Minister, when all things that are difficult happen to people. He made the point that legislation which authorises a treaty to bring in European free trade area countries will make the Common Market a less centralised organisation and more of a trading organisation. If that were all that the Common Market is and was aimed to be, more people could stomach it, but the Common Market has always had the aim of being more than a free trade area.
  It would be nice if the view advanced by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North were credible, but I do not think it is. It is a perfectly valid opinion to express, but on the basis of our experience it is unlikely to happen. It is true that the enlargement of the trade area is much bigger than anything that has been proposed before, but exactly the same arguments were advanced when Portugal and Spain entered the Common Market: that it would inhibit centralisation and that it would become such a large area that it would not be feasible to have the same degree of centralised control.
  On the face of it, that is perfectly plain common sense, but the reality is that centralisation has continued apace because the driving mechanism of the Common Market is not common sense but unification and the determination to turn the Common Market into Europe. Indeed, it is a phrase that it uses. The Common Market has appropriated the name of a continent for a trading area, which has now become common parlance. When people talk about Europe, they talk about the Common Market and the European Community. A friend of mine said that he was going to Europe. I said, "Do you mean the Common Market or Europe?" He said, "Switzerland." I said, "Thank God he used the word in its proper context."
  Europe has been hijacked as part of the propaganda exercise by the Common Market. We are all part of the continent of Europe. We are all Europeans, but not every European is part of the inward-looking group of nations that calls itself the Eurpean Community.
  I recall Spain and Portugal joining the so-called European Parliament. The European Parliament—this is an example of the extraordinary decisions that are taken under the unification process—wanted 250 officials to make way for 250 officials from Spain and Portugal. It simply sent

  449
  home 250 officials from the existing group of nations—on full pay—where they remain to this day because accountability for expenditure is not part of the Common Market. There is no scrutiny, check or counter-balance, as there is in each nation state, because people are too far from the point of expenditure to exercise it. The European Parliament cannot take such action because it does not work like that.
  The arrangement proposed in the Bill is parallel to that in the Common Market. A surveillance body will ensure that all legislation affecting trading is identical, and there will be a court to which appeals against decisions of the surveillance body will be taken. The Minister failed to answer the crucial question about whether the European Court or the new court of the European economic area will decide such cases. The Minister did not know the answer and he said that he would write to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who asked the question.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North said that it would be nice to have the answer on the record. That is what Hansard is for—to provide information to people about the legislation that will affect them. It will not be put on the record if the Minister writes to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. Similarly, it will not be on the record if the answer appears in the Library. It must be uttered here in the Chamber: that is very important.
  I mention that to show that the Government are not prepared. They have not done their homework well enough to be able to provide the House with the information that it seeks. I find that fact surprising, given all the resources available to them. They are asking the House to pass legislation the consequences of which are not clear to elected representatives.
  The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) spoke of his dilemma. He is in favour of free and open competition and a single market—the bigger the better—but in reality the single market does not work and the old cliché that the United Kingdom obeys the rules and the rest break them is, by and large, true.
  As I come from Bradford and represent a Bradford constituency, I am heavily involved in the defence of the textile industry. Eleven thousand people, many of whom live in my constituency, work directly in the textile industry, and between 11,000 and 20,000 depend on it. The BBC made a series of programmes on the Common Market. It investigated the Lana Rossi scandal, in which the Italian Government made grants to an enterprise called Lana Rossi. The Italian Government promised to repay money, but the BBC found that the enterprise had been privatised and the money lost.
  Another example concerned the Prato region in Italy, where companies do not have to pay national insurance contributions. That gives them a 10 per cent. advantage in wage payments immediately. The Commission investigated firms in the Prato region, which would not allow it to see the books; so it retired defeated and said, "We cannot tell." The inequality continues.
  Those are just two of the hundreds of examples that go on all the time. The notion of a single market working in perfect competition with everybody obeying rules absolutely and with only delivery and quality being the competitive element is an illusion. Business man after
  450
  business man will tell us that it is an illusion because they encounter such difficulties, which are called non-tariff barriers.
  We know from fairly recent experience that, if the French want to stop imports of television receivers, they say, "We know we cannot do this but we will send all the receivers to one point of entry for scrutiny where they will spend days, weeks and months," because that is how the French civil service works. Our civil service is subject to rules. It must have authority to undertake import surveillance, but the French say to their civil servants, "Do your best to stop things," and they do.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I hope that I have not interrupted the eloquence of his speech. The scheme to which he referred covered the importation of Sony television sets from Japan. It was a hopeless failure. It was quickly abandoned and the French are no longer following the route that he has just described.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is quite right, but the fact is that they did it, whereas we have never done anything like that. I can tell my hon. Friend, who has never been a Minister, that, when I was a Minister for two years, we had the greatest difficulty ensuring import surveillance. Sections of British industry that simply did not know the extent of the competition that they were up against repeatedly asked the Department to intervene. We had delegations from, for example, the Sheffield cutlery industry about import surveillance.
  The problem was that we found ourselves up against the Department of Trade and Industry, which was penetrated from top to bottom by uncritical Euro-converts, who said, "We cannot do this, because it will upset the Common Market." Unfortunately, that situation happened all too often. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, who held a rather more exalted position at the Department of Trade and Industry than I, nods in agreement. It was a battle. At one meeting, some civil servants wanted to exclude all civil servants who had a critical word for the Common Market.
  Mr. Biffen: There is nothing more exalted than the Back Benches.
  Mr. Cryer: I was being ironic, but I should not do so because it does not record well in Hansard.
  The proof of our position is in our trade deficit with the Common Market.
  Mr. Skinner: It was £1·09 billion last month.
  Mr. Cryer: That is right. If we continue to run at last month's figures, the deficit will be more than £12 billion a year. I do not suppose it will reach that incredible figure, but the deficit will be at least £4 billion or £5 billion a year. That last time we had a trade surplus with the Common Market was before we became a member in 1972. Plainly, something is not working well.
  The Government suggest that the legislation will improve matters—that it is an opportunity for our traders and manufacturers to benefit—but the evidence is all against that happening. It is contrary to our experience that extending the Common Market will improve our position. Our experience is that entering the Common Market was disastrous for our balance of trade, and as the Common Market has expanded it has become steadily worse.

  451
  The Government's argument is that we have to have access to this huge market in order to succeed, but Japan—one of the most successful manufacturing countries that the world has known—does not have a Common Market. Why? Are the Government looking to see if there is somewhere, somehow, information that they have overlooked in their blind search to extend the Common Market?
  Dr. Godman: Non-tariff barriers are to be found throughout the European Community. For example, the Government of the Irish Republic will not grant exploration licences to offshore oil and gas companies unless those companies agree to employ Irish nationals. Because of that, there are occasions when rigs and vessels moving from United Kingdom territorial waters have to shed crew members when entering Irish waters to drill for gas and oil.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend gives a good example, which demonstrates that the realities of Common Market membership are far different from its professed nature.
  I remember that, when Ireland entered the Common Market, it negotiated tax holidays for investment in manufacturing, which gave it an advantage that continued for many years. If Germany had not reunited, west Germany would have had a trading advantage because of its treaty with east Germany. That has not happened, because the two countries have amalgamated, to our considerable cost.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said that there was to be a convergence fund contained in the new treaty. The EFTA countries will make a contribution to those that are less well-off, and he hinted that that was some sort of socialist measure. There are two serious objections to the view that the Common Market is a socialist organisation. The Minister has quite rightly said that this treaty does not cover the common agricultural policy. We are dealing with a Government who say that the Common Market is a wonderful organisation. Unfortunately, the Labour Front Bench say it is a wonderful organisation but, given time and experience, it will change things. I hope that it will.
  The Government and the Opposition agree that the CAP needs changing. The Government say that the legislation will lead to a very lengthy and complicated sequence of events which will improve the Common Market. All I can say is that the promises made over the years have never been fulfilled. Why should we believe the Government now? Why should we accept the view—which I doubt—that a little bit of redistribution around the edges via this new treaty will offset the massive amount of public expenditure that the CAP represents?
  The CAP is totally unfair to the poorest nations of the world. When I was an MEP I asked the Common Market Commissioners why they did not have some of the food moved to the countries facing starvation in central Africa and have it stored in warehouses there. Not a chance. They want the money to go to the Common Market farmers. It is the selfishness of the wealthiest countries that causes mountains of food to go rotten. They would rather store the food here for six years, at great expense, than help other countries that are in difficulty. I do not accept the view that the Common Market has anything to do with socialism.
  A consequence of this legislation will be the free movement of capital. I am a member of the Labour party
  452
  because I have always thought that labour should be at least equal to capital—in fact, it should be superior because we are talking about human beings as opposed to the accrued wealth obtained by exploiting other human beings. If there is free movement of capital, the elected Government of the day will not be able to intervene and say that the priority is people rather than profit. The wealth creators should have the benefits rather than the profiteers. The free movement of capital allows unhindered benefits for the capitalists.
  Baroness Thatcher has made many protestations about her criticism of the Common Market. What utter nonsense! She took the country deeper than ever before into the Common Market as soon as she got into government. She did not remove the Exchange Control Act 1948, thank goodness, but she did remove what we call in Euro-speak the derogation—the derogation which gave us some control over capital movements—and thus gave free rein to the capitalists. That took us in deeper because we were denied the advantage that we had negotiated.
  The cost of our membership of the Common Market is running at £2·5 billion a year. Will the legislation cost us more, or will we get a net inflow as a result of the influx of capital from the contributions of the EFTA countries? We should be told, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said.
  There was a distasteful speech by the Secretary of State for Social Security. He makes them at every Conservative party conference. He targets single women and says that they get pregnant in order to jump the housing queue when there is no evidence to support that. I mention that only in passing. He also talked about foreign scroungers. I think that that is distasteful. At the same time, it is legitimate to ask the Minister what the clause on the financial effects of the Bill means. It says:
  "There may be a small amount of additional expenditure as a result of the application of the Income Support Regulations 1987 … to EFTA nationals."
  I am not being nationalistic or chauvinistic; I am seeking information.
  I am not a little Englander in my attitude to the Common Market, but I seek wider relationships outside the Common Market. I think we should trade and establish relationships with the rest of the world rather than have a big barrier built around 12 nations called the Common Market. It is a legitimate question to ask the Minister. If he does not answer me now, there will be money motions and ways and means motions when he will have to produce some answers. Anyone who thinks that I do not raise questions on money motions should look at my past performances in the House, when hon. Members have been mortified because Parliament has continued for an extra 45 minutes.
  In introducing the legislation, the Minister claimed that our manufacturing industry would benefit. During the period in which we have been a member of the Common Market, our manufacturing industry has been decimated everywhere. In Bradford there are deserted sites where mills once stood. Coventry Climax was a famous name for engines and forklift trucks. I have been to Coventry, where all that I saw was two pairs of gates with "Coventry Climax" on them, behind which was a desert the size of four football pitches where workers used to produce machinery. Gone. Those were just a couple of examples. As we know, thousands of jobs have been lost in

  453
  manufacturing industry because of the Government's economic policies and the relevant part of this legislation is our membership of the Common Market.
  The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North argues that this measure, by bringing in other countries, will dilute the centralised power. I hope that it will, in view of what has happened. For example, when Bob Clay was a Member of Parliament, he used to argue ferociously in the Chamber for a shipyard in Sunderland—the most modern shipyard in the country, renovated relatively recently with a high capital investment—but the Government had done a deal that there should be an enterprise zone in Sunderland, so the relevant Commissioner told them that the shipyard must not be allowed to open.
  It is all on the record. Our economic policy is being dictated in general and in detail by Commissioners who owe allegiance not to any electorate, or to any ruling class, middle class or working class, but to a group of people who have the power of patronage to appoint them; and they make decisions over our lives, and the lives of the people of our country. If the legislation did dilute that power, I would agree with it, but judging from experience I do not believe that it will.
  I have no doubt that the Government will have a majority tonight, but there will be a Division and some hon. Members will say no to this constant stream of legislation which has no basis in thought or experience because of the adverse conditions that it entails for the people of our country. It is time that it was brought to a stop, and sooner or later the people of this country will wake up and it will be brought to a stop.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Bell: It is always interesting to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) because he speaks with knowledge and experience; he was a Minister for two years, he speaks with passion and eloquence and he speaks with knowledge, as he comes from Bradford and has seen the decimation of the mills there. He also brings to the debate the passion of the debate and his dealings with the European Community.
  Other hon. Members have followed that today and a host of hon. Members have made contributions, from the Minister of State, who opened, to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who referred to the "seamless robe". He made a fascinating speech, which began with the European Communities Act 1972 and took us to the Single European Act and to the treaty of Oporto. He said, "The Prime Minister travels hopefully," but he travels alone.
  The speeches made in the House and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South express arguments that are not made by others in the European Community. The European Community countries hold different views and have a different version of where the future lies from that put forward by the Prime Minister in articles in The Economist—the so-called Brixton manifesto. The right hon. Gentleman can say that in The Economist and he can say that for Conservative spokesmen. When he gets to Heads of Government conferences, whether he makes the same points or not, his voice is not heard. That was the great difficulty which Lady Thatcher, the former Prime Minister, had. When she met the Heads of
  454
  Government, she wanted to talk about the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the Uruguay round; she was ignored and instead we got the Maastricht treaty.
  The Government have suffered in the country and the House by speaking with two voices—the one that says, "We will stand up for British interests here," and the one at Brussels that surrenders those interests and gives the power to the Commission in Brussels to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one subject. He said that the Prime Minister travels alone on those aspects about which he wrote in The Economist. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not bother to check public opinion across Europe in all the different nation states. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not travel alone. More and more members of the public who voted for their various leaders across Europe have turned against the centralising and the bureaucracy and want less of it. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench do not sign up to that as well.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the intervention. It was the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North who mentioned that the Prime Minister travelled hopefully and I who argued that he travelled alone. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) should not misinterpret or confuse the European debate throughout the EC, which is a legitimate democratic debate on those important matters, with the overwhelming view or even the majority view of other nation states. When a referendum was held in France, the result was in favour of the Maastricht treaty and the second referendum in Copenhagen came out in favour of it. We must not confuse the debate within a democracy with the eventual decision of the people.
  Many speeches have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made an important speech about free trade, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. There is a difficulty. We talk of free trade, when it affects us. We want to have free trade that allows us to sell our goods to Europe, America, New Zealand and Australia. When it comes to other countries selling their goods to us, we want all kinds of hedges and protectionism. That is our dilemma. We want a free market, but only when we can sell. When it turns out that other countries have to sell to us, the idea of the free market is diminished. That dilemma is never resolved. Our difficulties about that are the starting point of our debate.
  Of course we support the idea of a single market. I alluded earlier to the rigged market, which my hon. Friends below the Gangway know so well, in our energy decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South argued that the Adam Smith view of the market, the hidden hand, was based on the premise that investment would be made in the market by those who had the money to invest. The day that we abolished exchange controls in this country in 1979 and allowed capital to go to other markets and not our market formed the basis of our decline, and helped to push this nation state into two recessions and the loss of 1 million jobs.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Mr. Bell: I give way to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin).
  Mr. Jenkin: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but he has got it completely wrong. By maintaining open markets and allowing imports into the country—unlike the example of the videotape recorders going through Poitiers—we allowed the British consumer to buy videotape recorders much more cheaply here than almost anywhere else in Europe. The result was that the Japanese Sony investment came into the country and now we are becoming net exporters of videotape recorders to the rest of Europe. One can still buy them more cheaply in this country than one can in France.
  Mr. Bell: I am trying to explain why our nation state went through two recessions and lost 1 million jobs from 1979 to 1981 and from 1987 onward. It happened because of the link between the treatment of the movement of capital and the market. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject of the European Community as a whole and explained why there was investment in this country. Of course there was investment in our country in relation to those products.
  Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box seem to give us the impression that all the European investment from Japan comes into this country. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as much investment goes into France and more investment now goes into the Scandinavian countries because it is movement in EFTA? To say, therefore, that we get investment in this country because we are part of a single market, when other nation states are part of the same single market is a narrow view to take. But we are widening the debate. I was seeking to respond to some of the arguments which had been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South.
  I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), but I will read it with great interest. We heard the intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who spoke on behalf of his constituency, the statement by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South.
  People who read our proceedings must wonder where all the supporters of the Bill happen to be tonight. We have not heard many of them speaking and we have had a rather unbalanced debate as a consequence. The only two Members of the House who have supported it have turned out to be the Minister of State and the shadow spokesman, who has not, as the Minister said, yet had the experience of government that he has had—but if the Prime Minister travels in hope, so do I.
  7.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I must admit that I seem to have been listening to a different debate from the hon. Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bell), because I thought that a number of my hon. Friends broadly welcomed the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), a former Secretary of State for Trade, gave the Bill a very warm welcome. It has been one of the few
  456
  occasions when there has been a divergence of opinion between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  In a concise speech lasting some 10 minutes, my right hon. Friend explained the background to his views far better than the hon. Member for Middlesborough, who spoke for 30 minutes, during which we were given a tour of the Conservative party conference. As we had such a successful conference, I was not surprised that we were given a tour of it. I well understand why the hon. Gentleman did not want to dwell too long on his own party conference. He made a number of points which deserve a response.
  One of the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East concerned social security payments. The position is quite simple; it is the same as for EC nationals. Those who are not exercising rights under the agreement and are a burden to social security will not enjoy the right of residence here. The rules are reciprocal. United Kingdom nationals in EFTA states will also benefit. That puts it quite simply and the Bill puts into context the points which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made at Blackpool.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) also welcomed the Bill, and I was grateful for his support. He highlighted some important points about the jurisdiction of the Bill and the way in which the implementation of the agreement will be taken through the courts.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) also welcomed the Bill and set out what he saw as its advantages, such as extending the borders for trade, which I think is particularly welcome.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked me a specific question about Gibraltar. One of the reasons why the reasoned amendment he tabled was not selected is that it falls outside the criteria of the Bill.
  We hope to be able to make the necessary provisions, which will require primary legislation, to allow Gibraltar banks to passport into the United Kingdom, but it would be completely inappropriate to do this in a Bill to implement the EEA, and the Governor of Gibraltar has explained the position to the Chief Minister. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. I know that it is something that we want to put right and we will attempt to do so, but this Bill is not the place to do it.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked me a few questions, one relating to shipbuilding. The hon. Gentleman will find his answer on page 276 of the document that he has in front of him. He also asked about the anti-dumping case against Norwegian salmon. There is justification for a Commission investigation to establish the facts and the Department will consider the results of such an investigation on its merits. The Government are pressing the Commission to take it forward, so I hope to have given him some of the reassurance he requires.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), made what was a slightly unusual speech for him as he said that he had not had time to study the document in great detail. I know that my hon. Friend has been rather busy over the past year, however the document was published in October 1992. Therefore, I cannot take too seriously his criticism that he was not able to study it in full detail. Something else which was rather strange for my hon.

  457
  Friend was his over-reliance on opinion polls. He said that we should judge our remarks and everything we do by opinion polls. He should not dwell too much on those arguments in future for justification of what should and should not be done.
  Dr. Godman: The Minister referred to the declaration concerning shipbuilding on page 276. What is stated there is incorrect. It states:
  "The 7th directive expires at the end of 1993."
  The directive is to continue until the end of 1994. I asked whether the Norwegian shipbuilding subsidy will be brought into line with the level of subsidy awarded under the 7th directive.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The point I was making to the hon. Gentleman concerned how it was dealt with in the document. Obviously it will be discussed, but it would not necessarily fall into that category straight away.
  I was referring to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and I was grateful, although slightly wary of some of the arguments he pursued.
  Every time I hear the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), or the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I think of the Jurassic Park of the Labour party. The dinosaurs live on as far as their views are concerned. Although the hon. Member for Bradford, South criticised the Community, that did not stop him joining the European Parliament.
  Mr. Cryer: I did not join it; I was elected.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman was elected to the European Parliament and then elected to the House of Commons. He was taking a dual mandate and doing two jobs, for which he often criticises many people.
  I was also slightly surprised at some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He almost gave us a Labour party pledge, but bearing in mind that the Labour party made a pledge not to make pledges until it could decide what its policies were, I can forgive him for that. I half got the impression that he was arguing that the Labour party was in favour of the reintroduction of exchange controls.
  Mr. Bell: The Labour party is sufficiently sophisticated to realise how difficult that would be and we have no intention of going down that road. I simply wished to point out to the House and the Minister that it was by freeing capital that we destroyed the principle of Adam Smith and that the hidden hand works in a free market, but the investment comes from the investors in that market. It was when that link was broken in 1979 that we encountered so many difficulties.
  Mr. McLoughlin: When one is in a hole, one usually stops digging, but the hon. Gentleman continues to try and dig. He is supposed to be one of the more enlightened hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, but he has shown a yearning for control, so the Labour party seems to have learnt nothing in the past 14 years.
  Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am coming to the end of my speech, but I realise that the hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to make the points that he wishes to raise so I might as well give way to him.
  Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister saying that the Government will never at any time take action to introduce exchange control as Spain and Portugal have recently done in view of movements against their currencies?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether it was official Labour party policy to reintroduce exchange controls, and he boxed cleverly round that point. The hon. Gentleman also overlooks the fact that we have attracted considerable investment into the country.
  The hon. Member for Bolsover represents a constituency in the county of Derbyshire, which I too have the privilege of representing in the House and which has seen sizeable inward investment.
  Mr. Skinner: Where?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not travel into the south of the county. Derbyshire has seen considerable investment into the county.
  Mr. Skinner: I have seen that almost every pit in my constituency has been closed during the past 14 years of Tory Government. When the Tories came in, there were nine pits; they have all been shut. If the Minister is referring to Toyota, it provided jobs for car workers that had been held by people who had jobs in British factories producing other cars. It has just produced another range of cars with jobs for people already doing that, without proper trade union recognition into the bargain.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I think that we might be straying slightly wide. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) welcomed the investment that we have seen in the county and the jobs and wealth that it has brought —£770 million of inward investment as a result of that investment. If the hon. Member for Bolsover is saying that the county council neglected to try to get regeneration in his area, he might want to take that up with his party, who run that authority.
  We have seen tremendous Japanese investment in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman was unfair when he said that it is going to other countries: 40 per cent. of total Japanese investment is invested in the United Kingdom.
  I believe that, as my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, the Bill will extend our market place quite substantially and bring the advantage of those markets more easily to British manufacturers and British industry.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 9.

  Division No.367]

  [8.11 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Alexander, Richard

  Booth, Hartley

  Ancram, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  Bates, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  459

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hunter, Andrew

  Butler, Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Cash, William

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clappison, James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Congdon, David

  Legg, Barry

  Conway, Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lidington, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Couchman, James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Lord, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Devlin, Tim

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dover, Den

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dunn, Bob

  Marlow, Tony

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Merchant, Piers

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Monro, Sir Hector

  French, Douglas

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gallie, Phil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Norris, Steve

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Patnick, Irvine

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pickles, Eric

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hague, William

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hawksley, Warren

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heald, Oliver

  Richards, Rod

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Hendry, Charles

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  460

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walden, George

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Waller, Gary

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Stern, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Willetts, David

  Sykes, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and

  Thomason, Roy

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Beggs, Roy

  Trimble, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order [20 October].

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA BILL [Lords] [Money]
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged by any other Act upon the public revenue.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

European Economic Area Bill [Lords] [Ways and Means]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Economic Area Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged by any other Act upon the people.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
8.21 pm
Mr. Cryer: As I requested in my speech, will the Minister give an outline of the amount of money that is needed? He probably has a note in front of him for this occasion. As several hon. Members have referred to the financial effects of the Bill as set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum, it would help if the Minister were to explain the cost and financial effects of the Bill and the ways and means that will therefore be required in order to finance the Bill. I am not the only hon. Member to raise this matter. At least one Conservative Member did so too. As the Minister has no doubt been provided with the information, by courtesy of the civil servants, it would be helpful to be given it.
For example, during the debate the Minister said that, with regard to further financial support of the further financial expenditure on the income support regulations, it is a reciprocal relationship with the other EFTA countries—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is usually more astute. We have dealt with the money resolution which affects income support. We are now on the next motion where matters of income support are not appropriate.
Mr. Cryer: The Ways and Means resolution provides for ways and means of meeting expenditure and the total
462
ways and means should be outlined by the Minister. I should be grateful if he would do that. This question has been raised by several hon. Members, myself included. No doubt the Minister will refer to the first resolution by way of explanation in passing, as he is entitled to do.
8.23 pm
Mr. McLoughlin: The Ways and Means resolution is necessary due to the potential for taxation as a result of the effect of clause 2(1) on the existing Acts of Parliament. Clause 2(1) modifies United Kingdom legislation to ensure its consistent application to the whole of the Community and EFTA. It applies to legislation that relates to the subject matter of the EEA agreement. Where the operation of such legislation is limited by reference to the Communities, the reference will, in effect, be substituted by one to the European economic area. So the clause will affect the operation of certain existing Acts of Parliament. Where those Acts imposed taxation, requiring a Ways and Means resolution, the amendment to them by clause 2(1) clearly has a potential to increase taxation. It is for that reason that the House rules require a money resolution.
The financial memorandum to the Bill describes three specific areas where there is likely to be increased expenditure—£1·1 million per year in 1996–97 as a result of the application of the EC social security regulations to EFTA nationals; a small amount as the result of the application of the income support regulations 1987 to EFTA nationals; an increase in United Kingdom and other member states' fourth resource contributions to the EC budget as a result of the reduction of agricultural levies that contribute to the EC's own resources. Those all arise from directly applicable Community obligations.
Question put and agreed to.

European Economic Area Bill [Lords]
Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [20 October].
[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

  AGREEMENT ON EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA
  Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, after 'Act,', insert 'in the list.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  8.25 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 9, at end add
  'save that Protocol 3 of the Agreement shall not come into effect until 1st January 2000.'.
  This is a probing amendment. Protocol 3 refers to the changes in the agricultural arrangements of the basic contracts between the EC and EFTA. My sole question .is whether that will add to the agriculture expenditure of the Community in any respect.
  It is rather a serious matter which I raise because I have just received a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pointing out how, unfortunately, expenditure on agriculture within the common agricultural policy is wholly out of control. It seems that we are exceeding the guidelines, the mountains are at an all-time high and we have had the frightening news from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the price of food for the average family is now being forced up by £24 a week. My sole question is whether protocol 3, if operating, will add in any way to the expenditure of the EC on food or food disposal.
  Mr. McLoughlin: It is not clear to what extent EC exporters will wish to take advantage of the provisions in protocol 3. But the general point is that both expenditure from the CAP budget to EC exporters and payments into its levies from EFTA goods are likely to be reduced. It is wrong, therefore, to draw the conclusion that protocol 3 would lead to an increase in the CAP budget. Protocol 3 aims to improve the trade between the EC and EFTA by reducing tariffs on certain processed agricultural products. I hope that that is an objective that my hon. Friend will support.
  It is impossible to estimate the precise financial effects of protocol 3. We do not know the extent to which the EC or EFTA exporters will take advantage of the provisions or whether they will choose to continue to use protocol 2 of the 1973 EC/EFTA free trade agreement. Moreover, any reduction in import levies on EFTA goods paid into the budget may be offset by a reduction in export funds paid out of it from EC exporters.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, at end add
  'together with the Protocol adjusting that Agreement signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The amendments take account of the protocol that excludes Switzerland from the EEA agreement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Cryer: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 24, at end insert
  'and approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 40 and insert
  'but this power shall not be exercisable unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Cryer: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 relate to the delegated powers contained in the primary legislation. Because of the important nature of the legislation, the two amendments would have the effect of converting the discretion to use either an affirmative procedure instrument or a negative procedure instrument at the discretion of the Minister to requiring an affirmative procedure instrument.
  8.30 pm
  The Government make massive use of delegated powers. In 1992, they produced 3,500 statutory instruments—most of which were subject to the negative procedure. In theory, that procedure—for which the Bill makes provision—is fine if, as is required, the instrument is deposited in the House and lies on the Table for 40 days. During those 40 days, a prayer can be tabled—and even after the expiry of those 40 days a revocation motion can be tabled. The Government lay many instruments during a recess, which is not exactly the way to open government and full accountability. During any recess, praying days can be lost. If the Law Lords or the other place sits—and even if this House does not—they also count as praying days. Therefore, the days on which a prayer can be tabled can tick away.
  That is bad enough, but there is still the possibility of a revocation motion. The question then arises of the time allocated to debate a prayer. In reality, few opportunities are available to the House to debate a prayer on a negative procedure instrument. In 1992, about 125 prayers were laid but only a couple of dozen were given time to be debated on the Floor of the House or upstairs in the merits Committee. The time available to debate prayers is limited.
  Also, there are moves by some hon. Members—and I hope that they are defeated—to curtail the number of hours that the House sits. I believe that they are mistaken. One cannot have a legislature that finishes at 5, 6 or 7 o'clock. If we did so, that would further curtail the time available for negative procedure instruments—and we cannot be sure that the Jopling proposals will not be adopted. I do not like those proposals because one of our responsibilities is to take a closer and better look at delegated legislation.
  The amendments provide that, with this legislation, the only instruments will be affirmative procedure instruments—which means that time would have to be provided. That would not be done at the discretion of the Minister but would be a requirement of the primary legislation, which is important.
  I acknowledge that negative procedure instruments are acceptable in some cases. In a modern, sophisticated society, Ministers must produce legislation—and I am not saying that delegated powers should be removed. They are important and necessary. One must, however, make a

  465
  judgment as to whether the powers granted to a Minister are of a degree of importance that means that Parliament must scrutinise the delegated powers. The Minister should not try to slip them through.
  As the Secretary of State knows, Ministers do try to slip things through. Next week, we shall debate mine safety regulations that were tabled on 6 August, not long after Parliament had risen for the summer recess, and came into effect shortly afterwards. They had become law before Parliament had any opportunity to consider them. While it is true that we shall have such an opportunity next week, we shall debate regulations that are already in operation—and that is often the case.
  The Bill is linked to a large, detailed and comprehensive treaty—a copy of which can be seen on the Opposition Dispatch Box. The Bill, which is fairly brief, gives important powers to the Minister and the amendments will ensure that that legislation—which has been the subject of some criticism—will automatically be subject to scrutiny when it is put into operation by the delegated powers. That would not be a bad thing, as I have argued in respect of other legislation. We should opt more for the affirmative rather than negative procedure.
  I speak from a prejudiced position as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. Such measures pass before my eyes in their hundreds every month at this time of the year. Both Committees know full well the volume of delegated powers that the Government are producing, because they have a huge backlog of statutory instruments from the summer months.
  It causes me genuine concern that Parliament is not giving them adequate scrutiny. People suffer as a consequence of badly drafted or incompetently worded legislation. Some alarm is felt because a fair measure of criticism is directed at instruments from the Lord Chancellor's Department, which one might expect to get them right the first time.
  The statutory instruments Committees often report to the House that a Minister is exceeding his powers, and that those that he claims are not within the scope of the primary legislation and are ultra vires. By and large, the House ignores such reports—although it does have an opportunity to debate the issue if the affirmative procedure is used. If the measure is subject to a prayer and is not debated, it will be passed. The people who are affected then have to go to court.
  Courts are expensive places, and if people do not have the means to use them they are left to suffer from legislation that was not subject to scrutiny by the House. If Ministers produce badly worded legislation, that is a failure on the part of the House. This legislature should try to produce legislation that is as clear and precise as possible, without it being necessary to refer it to the courts.
  It would be better if clauses I and 5 were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so that their provisions would come before the House and any faults would be exposed. There would be no question of the Minister seeking to avoid the issue, or of there being no opportunity for debate even if the Minister was keen to discuss the measure but the Leader of the House said that there was not the time available to do so.
  The amendments would provide for automatic scrutiny, and I hope that the Minister will say that they are an excellent idea. I suspect that he will not, because all Ministers want the easy option. We should not take the
  466
  easy option. I want more and more affirmative procedures, so that the House begins to wake up to its responsibility to exercise scrutiny of the vast volume of delegated legislation.
  This Government have produced more delegated legislation than any other in the history of Parliament. It is not surprising that Parliament needs to catch up, to ensure the degree of scrutiny to which the people of this nation are entitled.
  Mr. McLoughlin: When I saw the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) I took it very seriously. He said that I would automatically reject his amendment. He will remember that on a number of occasions during the Committee dealing with the Transport and Works Bill I accepted his suggestions because he made some valid contributions. I therefore looked particularly carefully at this amendment. I had heard his speech before and I knew the arguments that he would use. Although the hon. Gentleman has attacked the use of certain powers available to Ministers, he was pleased when we used one such power on a company of which he is a non-paid director.
  Mr. Cryer: I am not a director—I have five £10 shares. The Minister is talking about 1967, when the only way of obtaining a light railway was through a ministerial order which was not the subject of any further parliamentary procedure. I have tried to improve things since being elected.
  Mr. McLoughlin: If I am guilty of anything today, making the hon. Member for Bradford, South laugh is a pleasure to us all.
  The hon. Gentleman will expect me to explain why I cannot accept his amendment. As I have said, I hope that he will accept that I have looked at it seriously. It may help if I explain the proposed effect of clause 5.
  Clause 5 provides that the powers to make regulations under clauses 2(2) and 3(2) are exercised by statutory instrument. The instruments may be subject to either the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure in the same manner as an instrument under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The clause follows the formula in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 2 to the 1972 Act. The 1972 Act allows either affirmative or negative procedure to be adopted so that the regulations under section 2(2) of that Act may be combined with regulations made under the powers in other Acts. These Acts may provide for either negative or affirmative procedure, but not for both. The flexibility provided for in the 1972 Act allows section 2(2) regulations to be made using whichever procedure applies under the other Act.
  The same consideration applies to regulations under clause 2(2) or clause 3(2) of the Bill. If clause 5 provided only for either the negative or the affirmative procedure, there would be occasions when regulations made under other enactments but on the same matter would have to be subject to different procedures and, as a consequence, different instruments. That would be an unnecessary confusion. In fact, it would increase the number of statutory instruments with which the Government would be required to deal. It would be a waste of time and resources and it would be unhelpful to readers to have to understand the relationship between them. It is far better to ensure that the two sets of regulations are made in the same instrument and are subject to the same procedure.
  Mr. Cryer: In view of the explanation given by the Minister and the fact that it is now on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  The Chairman: I should point out to the Committee that there is a printing error in that amendment. It should have referred to clause 2. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not notice that. That is why I have put the question on clause 1 out of sequence.
  Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

  INTERPRETATION
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 46, at end add—
  'as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993.'.
  No. 8, page 4, line 3, at end add—
  '(2) References in this Act to the date on which the Agreement comes into force are references to the date on which (in accordance with the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993) it comes into force otherwise than as regards Liechtenstein.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

  SHORT TITLE
  Amendment proposed: No. 9, page 4, line 6, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister cannot simply ask us to accept that the subsection should be withdrawn without an explanation. The words to be removed state:
  "Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money".
  Basically, it says that it will not cost us a penny. The least that we should do is ask the Minister what charges he thinks might arise. What levies might arise? Several of us have expressed the view that this will cost us money. We must know why subsection (2) is being taken out. Do the Government now envisage that there will be charges, levies or something else?
  8.45 pm
  Mr. McLoughlin: I shall try to explain the point to my hon. Friend. This is a procedural amendment relating to privilege. When a Bill involving expenditure starts in the House of Lords, it inserts a privilege amendment which preserves the convention that the Lords does not deal with money measures. That is sidelined in black in the version of the Bill introduced in the House of Commons. This amendment removes that provision.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4

  APPLICATION OF EC LEGISLATION
  '.—Her Majesty's Government shall be obliged to make a report each year to each House of Parliament which provides a full list of the European legislation which is applicable to the members of EFTA in consequence of the Agreement of Oporto.'.—[Sir Teddy Taylor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Chairman: With this we shall consider new clause 5—Report to Parliament—
  'A Minister of the Crown shall lay before Parliament every six months a report setting out all transactions Her Majesty's Government has undertaken in the preceding six months in pursuance of the obligations of the United Kingdom under the Agreement including those undertaken on its behalf by the Commission of the European Community, together with a description of any agreements reached or decisions come to under the Agreement during that period by the European Community or its Member States and such countries as have ratified the Agreement or any body acting on behalf of those countries.'.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I do not want to detain the House. I have referred to the massive amount of Euro-legislation that the unfortunate EFTA countries will have to abide by, even though they played no part in drawing it up. This matter could be resolved if the Minister would say that he will send me a note, perhaps next week or the week after, giving a list of the Euro-directives and legislation that the EFTA countries will have to adopt now. Perhaps he could put a copy in the Library. It would be helpful to know whether it is three or four measures or nine or 10 measures. I am not asking the Minister to do this every year, but if he promises to send that note and put a copy in the Library, I should be happy to withdraw the motion and let hon. Members get away. It is a simple request.
  All the EFTA countries will have to have such a list because they are now obliged to obey that Euro-legislation. I appreciate that democracy is now almost totally dead in this country and that Parliament is almost totally irrelevant in that respect, but the people should be told what is happening. If the Minister will send me a note, prepared with the help of all the clever people in the Foreign Office, that will do me fine. For the one or two Members who are interested, a copy could be placed in the Library. That would be a satisfactory conclusion to the debate.
  Throughout the debate we have had a helpful, constructive and positive Minister. He has helped us to conclude our discussion much earlier than would otherwise have been the case. I should be grateful if he could make a positive response to a basic question, and we could then pull stumps.
  Mr. Cryer: I should like to speak to new clause 5. It is much the same as that tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  It would be helpful if, instead of writing notes to hon. Members, the Minister were to accept one of the new clauses so that he could formally lay one note in the Library, which is the convention. We merely seek a record of the progress—if that is the right word—or the regression as the Oporto agreement is implemented.
  New clause 5 involves a more frequent requirement: it asks for a report every six months rather than every year. The report would note the transactions undertaken by the Government in the previous six months in pursuance of the obligations laid down in the very fat volume of the treaty. The new clause would also require that anything undertaken by the Commission should also be listed because it is important that we are able to keep track of what the Commission is up to.
  In theory, the Commission does only what the Council of Ministers requires it to do but, of course, the Commission also presents reports and makes suggestions

  469
  to the Council of Ministers, either on its own initiative or in response to the Council of Minister's proposals. We should like a note of what the Commission has undertaken in the previous six months. New clause 5 also calls for
  "a description of any agreements reached or decisions come to under the Agreement … by the European Community or its Member States and such countries as have ratified the Agreement or any body acting on behalf of those countries."
  It is a reasonable requirement.
  A criticism accepted by members of all parties is that the Common Market is too remote. We know that legislation is being passed by directive. Hon. Members do not see the directive but see a statutory instrument which implements the directive. As the Committee knows, I am in a more privileged position than most hon. Members because I have to read most of the statutory instruments produced by the legislative blunderbuss of the Common Market.
  New clause 5 would require a simple report twice a year to tell hon. Members what is happening. We may approve or deplore what is happening, but at least we would know. What other way is there of finding out? It is true that we have an excellent department in the Library which deals with EC affairs, but it sometimes gets things wrong.
  I remember when we received the first outline of the Maastricht agreement. I received a copy from the Library but, within a few days, I received a hasty note saying, "Terribly sorry, that draft is out of date. We have another." It is a difficult job for the Library department. As the Government are involved, they could easily place a report in the Library as suggested in the new clause.
  Not all 651 hon. Members would make a beeline for the Library but those who were interested could do so. The Common Market is not the most stimulating topic of conversation. Indeed, if one wants people to go away, one has only to turn to them and start talking about it and one will find that crowds will break up easily. What I am suggesting would be a service to all hon. Members but, in practice, only a few would go to the Library. Those of us who are interested are not being unreasonable in suggesting that Ministers should provide the necessary information regularly.
  The new clause would enable Ministers to reach out to the rest of the nation. If something proves useful, we can publicise it. If something proves difficult or onerous, we could highlight that, too. We could also use the procedures of the House, as we already do for other matters: if something listed in the report were disadvantageous to the United Kingdom, an hon. Member could secure an Adjournment debate or raise the issue by the various methods that Parliament affords to hon. Members.
  The Minister likes to say often that I served for five years—I was elected on an anti-Common Market basis, I might add—in the EC Assembly. It was an experience. This House affords us many more opportunities to raise issues than the rigid, authoritarian European body which,
  470
  in reality, is run by the leaders of all the political parties. Although we were not in fact prevented from doing so, critics like myself had great difficulty in airing our views. The House offers many opportunities which we cherish.
  If hon. Members were to receive the necessary information in a bi-annual report, we would be able to take advantage of it if we wished to do so. That is a small request, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister's brief says.
  Mr. McLoughlin: It is always a pleasure to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), although I do not know whether he will want me to write to him in the way that he suggested. However, I can go some way to meeting his request and that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
  I share the concern that Parliament should be properly informed of developments in the European economic area. However, the new clause is not necessary as, under the Bill as it stands, Ministers will make two types of report to Parliament on the EEA. Moreover, the new EEA Acts extending to EFTA will be subject to scrutiny under our normal procedures and will be published in the new EC section of the Official Journal.
  Once the agreement comes into force, the Government will report twice a year to Parliament on the operation of the EEA in a six-monthly White Paper on developments in the European Community. There will be a new section in the White Paper exclusively for the EEA. That follows a recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, made in its report on free trade with EFTA on 25 July 1990. I hope that I have proved how we shall meet the request of my hon. Friend and that of the hon. Member for Bradford, South without the need for the new clause.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful for the Minister's kind and considerate answer. It is very interesting to know that we shall receive so much information in various reports but I was not looking for all that. I merely wanted a list of legislation. We can reach a compromise. I shall table a written question on Monday asking the Minister to list legislation by which EFTA countries will have to abide as a consequence of the Oporto agreement. I shall read the answer in Hansard, which will save the Minister trouble. If he really wants to do all that he has offered, I shall be grateful and pleased, and so will everyone else, but there is no need for him to go out of his way.
  I thank the Minister for being so understanding. He has done a grand job tonight. I shall table a written question, which will satisfy me and which will, I hope, interest the democratic community. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 10, in title, at end add
  'as adjusted by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 17th March 1993'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Education (North-West Kent)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
8.58 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, who will respond to my argument. Although the debate is about educational provision in north-west Kent, it must of necessity centre on parental rights and school democracy. I shall also introduce the concept of the "right to silence", in the context not of police interrogation of suspects, but of the withholding of their views by the representatives of left-of-centre political parties which sought election to Kent county council in May and which now control it.
Let me sketch my concerns. In 1988, when I was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary at what was then called the Department of Education and Science, I gladly assisted in the passage of the Education Reform Act. Among other provisions, the Act sets down procedures according to which governors and parents seek grant-maintained status and, if successful, take their schools out of local education authority control. Those procedures ultimately involve the parents or guardians of children at such a school in the exercise of school democracy through a parental ballot.
I am also glad to welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)—I know that he would like to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who has been a doughty fighter on behalf of parents in her constituency since we lost control of Kent county council in May.
Between the passage of the 1988 Act and 18 June 1993, four secondary schools in the Dartford constituency successfully applied for and achieved grant-maintained status. Those were Dartford grammar school for boys, Dartford grammar school for girls, the grammar school for girls, Wilmington—that was the first school in Kent to opt out—and Wilmington grammar school for boys. As well as the secondary schools, the Sutton-at-Hone Church of England primary school also received permission to become grant-maintained.
I have already referred to the period between the 1988 Act coming into force and 18 June 1993. The House may ask what the importance of that date is. It is significant because, on 18 June, the new Liberal-Labour majority on Kent education committee voted
"to change its policy on grant maintained schools, from adopting a neutral stance towards schools seeking to opt out of County Council control, to vigorously encouraging them to stay within it.
That change was and is fundamental. I believe that no mandate for it was put before the electors of Kent—at least, not in my part of Kent—by the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, or by the candidates that they fielded.
When the Conservative party controlled the county of Kent, a neutral stance towards grant-maintained applications was adopted, and of course the authority made objections to some proposals that were considered not to be viable. However, the Conservatives on Kent county council made it clear that, when a parental vote in favour of seeking grant-maintained status was announced, all efforts to keep the school within the embrace of the local education authority would cease. The wishes of parents and governors would be the guiding force. Until May 1993,
472
Kent county council took the altogether proper view that grant-maintained schools in Kent employed Kent teachers to educate Kent children on behalf of Kent parents.
However, since 18 June, another Dartford primary school, Holy Trinity Church of England school, has received approval for grant-maintained status from 1 January 1994, despite hostile objections from Kent county council.
Equally, the Horton Kirby Church of England primary school held a successful ballot, in which a majority of parents voted to opt out. Liberal Democrat/Labour Kent has moved in a hostile fashion against that school, despite the wishes of the parents and despite the unanimous vote of the governing body, which to my certain knowledge has on it some governors who do not vote Conservative. This application, which I fully endorse, is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for a decision.
My hon. Friend the Minister will see from the picture I am painting that the policy of grant-maintained schools has been extremely successful in north-west Kent. Nevertheless, the schools that have chosen not to seek a change in status or whose parents may decide to vote no after a properly conducted debate have a claim on my time, support and affection equal to that of the schools that have taken advantage of a policy that I helped to create in the late 1980s.
I now turn to my further concerns, which I suspect are shared by my hon. Friends across Kent, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who asked to be associated with this debate. My concerns are these. The Conservatives lost control of Kent in May this year. The first act of Liberal Democrat/Labour-controlled education committee was to abandon neutrality and to replace it with hostility—a policy now practised consistently against any application made.
I now make a serious charge, which is that, in my constituency at the most recent Kent county council elections, not one Labour or Liberal Democrat candidate, I believe, proclaimed that, if elected and if his or her party was in a position of power after the May elections, he or she would vote to oppose grant-maintained applications as a matter of hard policy.
I have read Labour and Liberal Democrat leaflets, boring though they may be, issued to electors across Dartford, and of those that I have seen, not one has mentioned that change of policy. Interestingly, all the parties at county hall published a countrywide political manifesto. Did the Liberal Democrats and socialists at county hall announce their hostility to grant-maintained schools and to such applications? Not likely. They opted for the right of silence.
Of course, if I am wrong and if a candidate from the left-of-centre parties in Dartford constituency had the courage of his or her policy and mentioned it in the issued leaflets, I shall publicly acknowledge that fact. I challenge the parties to supply me with proof of leaflets issued with their hostility to the grant-maintained policy contained therein.
Those who were elected for left of centre parties from my constituency to Kent county council are, of course, now happy after the election to condemn the policy of grant-maintained schools, and violently to oppose any applications that may come their way. Now they are, of course, beyond the reach of the electorate. I ask, on behalf of my concerned constituents: if the policy of allowing

473
schools to opt out is so worthy of condemnation, why was nothing said by the local left-of-centre party candidates during the Kent county council elections?
I now turn to Mr. Pryke. Under the Conservatives, he was appointed to be our chief education officer. He had always behaved in a truly professional manner, and I was never directly aware of the immense dissatisfaction and disaffection he inwardly felt towards Government education policy. I cannot remember an expression of major concern—although I may be wrong—by Mr. Pryke to me about grant-maintained schools. I am sure that my colleagues from Kent will back me on that—[Interruption.] Indeed, they are doing that by nodding their assent. Mr. Pryke kept silent and, as a servant of the authority, perhaps he was right to do so.
With the change in the political status in Kent, with one bound he was free. Thus we saw an astonishing article in The Times Educational Supplement on 1 October, which was soundly answered by our good friends Ronnie Norman and Mr. Cecil Knight.
However, it does not stop there. I have a letter dated 1 October 1993, which was sent to the parents of pupils attending Our Lady of Hartley Roman Catholic primary school by the area director of education for north-west Kent. That letter was sent to parents in Hartley after the school governors had initiated a ballot on grant-maintained status.
The area director states:
"Grant-maintained means:

Control by central government;

No better standards of education for your child;

More in-school bureaucracy;

No Local arbitrator for you, the parents."

The final sentence reads:
"and there is no assured long term benefit."
I bring that letter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education, because I believe the issue of that letter to be a hostile act. I hope that he will take it into account if, as I hope, a submission from that school comes his way.
I hope that what I have said already is of interest to my hon. Friend the Minister. It is deeply important for the people of Dartford and, I suspect, for people in constituencies across Kent who have always attached great importance to the range, variety and choice available to them in the education of their children. If the county of Kent wishes to be set alongside Lambeth and Derbyshire, so be it. In a match of the people versus Kent county council, I am happy to say that I will always back the people I represent.
Let me leave the final word to two of my local head teachers, who were quoted in a local paper on the question of grant-maintained status. Mrs. Jill Hadman, the head of Dartford Girls grammar school, said:
"I am very surprised at Mr. Pryke's comments. We have done a tremendous amount for the pupils since we opted out. We have increased accommodation, provided a full range of expressive arts at examination level in response to parents and got our own language lab.
In two years, we have had the flexibility to do so many things that we previously wanted. There is the sixth form common room for 230 students, additional classrooms and heating system."
Mrs. Hadman said that she thought that she was far more accountable than before, with no more passing the buck to education officials. She added:
474
"We do, of course, need to co-operate with local education authorities on issues such as admissions."
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) will raise that point later.
Mr. Les Clarke is the head teacher of the Holy Trinity primary school which has just received permission to opt out. He said:
"We are in a strong position with good buildings and have numerous things we want to forge ahead with once we get our budget. Parents are very much in favour and I can only see the school going from strength to strength."
That is the point of our philosopy: to push responsibility from the hub to the rim.
I have seen the schools in my constituency that have become grant-maintained benefit from a new dimension of dynamism and activity. The four points that the area director listed are utter rot, and the authority should be ashamed of them. I hope that, in time, more of my local schools will apply to opt out, and I hope that the Minister will be seized by the arguments that I have advanced, to prevent this activity in the county of Kent.
Finally, I thank Madam Speaker for allowing me this debate on the important subject of parental rights. As I have said, if it is a question of the people or bureaucracy, the people will get my support every time.
9.15 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for initiating this debate, which is vital to the education of children in north-west Kent, both in his borough of Dartford and in mine of Gravesham. I can confirm that, in the most recent county council election in Kent, no Labour or Liberal Democrat candidate in Gravesham told the electorate that he or she would conduct this disreputable campaign against grant-maintained schools.
In Gravesham, we have eight excellent secondary schools, two single-sex grammar schools, two Church comprehensives, two single-sex high schools and three mixed high schools—two in urban areas and one in the rural area. Together, they provide an excellent choice for parents. Every one of them embraced local financial management with enthusiasm. It has been a very effective scheme, brought in by Kent county council when it was Conservative, and implemented by an excellent team of officers led by Roy Pryke.
These schools then looked to the opportunities of GM status, which brings with it total local decision-making and financial control in schools. It is a logical extension of Kent's Conservative policy of local financial management. The schools in Gravesham carefully considered and steadily went towards GM status, with overwhelming parental support—votes of 90 per cent. and more in school after school—for instance, St. George's Church of England school, Meopham school, Southfields school, Northfleet school for boys. Parents are now balloting at St. John's Roman Catholic school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford was right about the letters from the area director of education. The parents at St. John's received the same hostile and misleading letter, with hardly a change besides the name of the school itself.
It is ironic that both the grammar schools—Gravesend grammar school for boys and Gravesend grammar school for girls—remain among Kent county council's secondary schools. They both know that the new Labour/Liberal Democrat alliance that is running Kent county council is

475
hostile to them. According to the policy and instincts of both parties, they would scrap the Gravesend grammar schools, but the fascinating thing is that they cannot do so, trumped by the capacity that the Government have given the schools to go grant-maintained and thus beyond the destructive clutches of the Lib-Lab alliance running the council. So the council has grudgingly accepted the continuing existence of these excellent schools, on the grounds that it is better to have a grammar school in the clutches of Kent county council than no school at all.
Considering all the advantages flowing from local financial management and then grant-maintained status, all should be well—and I can report to the House that all is well in the schools. But all is not well in terms of Kent county council's relations with those schools.
I have a letter from the Rev. Joe King, chairman of the governors of St. George's Church of England school. The House should be aware of this gentleman's background. He appeared in the election address of my Labour opponent at the general election, and he strongly endorsed Labour policy and the Labour candidate. That letter IS also signed by four other chairmen of school governors, one of whom is also a strong Labour party supporter and a CND member to boot, and seven head teachers.
This letter from the Rev. Joe King, the Labour supporter, and his colleagues states:
"The Authority's"—
that is, Kent county council's—
"previous neutral stance has apparently been replaced by a very vindictive approach in which a school that has recently obtained Grant Maintained status has experienced petty obstructionism. Two schools in the process of becoming Grant Maintained are experiencing outright opposition from the Authority. Head Teachers are placed in an invidious position in relation to their Local Authority colleagues when matters of concern to all schools are being discussed and there is no clarity in what we can expect from the Local Authority. The matters they should discuss with us include admissions, and failure to reintroduce the proper professional structures will prejudice the education of children in Gravesham."
Another vindictive attack that has come to light may be of interest to the House. Kent county council, now in Lib-Lab control, has exploited historic arrangements relating to the funding of special needs education in grant-maintained schools, and that directly affects young people with special educational needs. Having brought that to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, I am glad that he has already tackled the issue with his new code of practice, provided for in the Education Act 1993.
The House would expect to see all schools, regardless of their status, co-operating to provide good education in their areas. Furthermore, it would expect Kent county council to continue to work for the good of education in Kent. However, Kent county council education committee is now under the malign influence of the political prejudices of the new Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. Mr. Pryke, the chief education officer who has been mentioned in the debate, has made destructive partisan utterances.
We should be absolutely clear on the meaning of grant-maintained status. Some 10 per cent. of education funds is now being spent by grant-maintained schools. That is the proportion of the funding for education that is spent on specialist and administrative services, and that money cannot be spent twice. If it is spent by the grant-maintained schools, as it quite properly is, it cannot be spent by the central education administration of Kent county council.
476
Consequently, the central administration of Kent county council must slim down accordingly. If it does not, those additional funds can come from only one of two places —Kent county council's taxpayers or the remaining schools under the county council, and that would be totally wrong.
Mr. Dunn: The point to be made in the debate is that it is Mr. King, a Labour supporter, who speaks about the vindictive approach of Kent county council. The children who are being taught in schools that have become grant-maintained are still Kent children. Has not the Lib-Lab coalition that runs the county council effectively declared war on those children and their parents? We are taught to respect the wishes and the result of the ballot box. Why cannot our new masters in Kent county council do the same?
Mr. Arnold: That is the point. The Rev. Joe King, the chairman of the governors, a parish priest and a person who normally keeps out of politics—although he intervened on behalf of the Labour party at the last general election—is so worried about the welfare of the children in his schools that he has spoken out.
My feeling is that Mr. Pryke, as head of the central education administration in Kent, should concentrate on the slimming-down process of that bureaucratic core. He should not spend his time playing politics in pursuit of his vested interests. He has to remember that he is an expert employee of Kent county council. He is not a councillor. He is, indeed, a servant of that county council. He should attend to his duties.
Schools in Gravesham are working well. They are co-operating well. They could do so even better with the co-operation of Kent county council. Those schools have my support in their continuing endeavours to provide first-rate education to the youngsters of Gravesham.
9.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has done a service to his constituents and the House tonight in making a speech that was so well prepared and delivered. It drew on his wide experience and knowledge of education matters. The only pity is that, although he criticised the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, the Benches opposite were empty. Labour and Liberal Democrat Members will have to read his words in Hansard.
My hon. Friend was eloquently backed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who is a fellow Minister.
Before I go to the heart of my hon. Friend's speech, I hope that he will understand that I cannot comment on the specific school proposals to which he referred. They are currently with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I assure him that they will receive the closest possible attention. I hope that we shall release a decision as soon as practicable.
I have good news for the House and for my hon. Friends. Today, I approved no fewer than five more grant-maintained schools. There are now 754 grant-maintained, self-governing schools approved or operating in England.

477
Self-governing, grant-maintained, status is the most complete form of local management for schools. Parents in an ever-increasing number of schools are voting for it. In the White Paper published in July 1992, the Government made clear their commitment to grant-maintained schools and their hope that, in time, all schools would become grant-maintained. Measures in the Education Act 1993 will ease the transition to grant-maintained status and ensure that an increasing number of grant-maintained schools enjoy the best operating conditions.
Grant-maintained schools control their total budget, and this enables them to focus spending where it counts—on the delivery of education in the classroom. Grant-maintained schools are popular with parents and effective. Independent schools have noted good-quality lessons and deployment of resources, increased demand for places, commendable pupil behaviour and attendance and improved teacher morale.
The grant-maintained movement is about much more than money. Grant-maintained schools find that there are enormous benefits in being masters of their own affairs and having a real sense of ownership. Grant-maintained schools can make proposals for change directly to the Secretary of State—for example, on the age range of pupils.
Decisions are taken by parents, teachers and members of the local community—those who care about the school most, are closest to it and can take decisions faster than a bureaucracy every could. Grant-maintained status encourages increased parental involvement, from the initial ballot for grant-maintained status to increased numbers of parent governors on a grant-maintained governing body.
Despite their new-found independence, grant-maintained schools are far from isolated. There have been encouraging reports of such schools co-operating with one another by sharing information and making joint decisions about the purchase of services. What is more, there is no reason why grant-maintained schools should not continue to have an excellent relationship with schools which remain with the LEA. For example, schools can and do continue to co-operate in sixth form consortia.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dartford and for Gravesham appreciate the resounding arguments in favour of grant-maintained status. They will both be delighted to witness the growth of the grant-maintained sector in their county.
Kent is in the forefront of the grant-maintained movement. Ballots have been held in more than 50 per cent. of Kent secondary schools—more than one in eight schools in general. Only one LEA, Essex, has more grant-maintained schools than Kent. Indeed, of the 754 English schools which have now approved for grant-maintained status, 69, or almost one in 10, are in Kent.
The first self-governing secondary schools in Kent were incorporated in September 1989, and the first self-govering primary schools were incorporated in January 1992. The sector has expanded rapidly since then, and 39 per cent. of Kent secondary schools are now grant-maintained. More than 100 heads have attended conferences in Kent on going grant-maintained.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham pointed out, the sector in Kent now embraces a wide range of schools: selective as well as comprehensive schools,
478
primary and middle schools as well as large secondary schools, county schools and voluntary schools affiliated to both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, as well as ex-county schools.
Nationally, about four out of five grant-maintained ballots result in a yes vote. I am delighted to say that, in Kent, the rate is higher still, at almost 95 per cent., showing clearly that Kent parents recognise what is best for their children's schools.
There has been a great deal of speculation about the effect of the change of county council control on the growth of the grant-maintained sector in Kent, and my hon. Friends both referred to that tonight. However, what really matters is not what Kent county council thinks but what Kent parents think.
Measures in the Education Act 1993 will help to ensure that opinions in county hall do not control parents' thinking. They will create a fair and balanced debate by providing grants to governors to cover the cost of informing parents about grant-maintained status from the 1 January 1994. They will also limit the amount that LEAs can spend on influencing the outcome of the ballot.
Of course, LEAs that are opposed to grant-maintained status are perfectly entitled to put their views to parents in any school that is considering opting out of local authority control. There have been some instances in which LEAs and others have submerged parents under a sea of paper in the process of putting forward their case, while schools have had limited resources with which to conduct their campaign.
It is also important that the information that is sent to parents, from whatever side, is objective, explanatory, factual and non-political in content, tone or presentation. To help to achieve that, the Department and the Society of Education Officers have drawn up a common code of conduct. The SEO has distributed the code to its members, and the Department will promulgate it shortly.
I was disturbed to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham said about a particular leaflet. I invite him to forward the leaflet to the Department, where it will be given the closest attention, to establish whether or not it breaches the code.
I have every confidence that the grant-maintained sector will continue to grow, irrespective of the views of Kent county council. I have every respect for the ability of Kent parents to think for themselves.
In the time remaining, I wish to turn to Mr. Pryke's article in The Times Educational Supplement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred. In general, I agree with his views—that is, the views of my hon. Friend.
Perhaps I could take the opportunity to set the record straight on a number of matters. In the article, Mr. Pryke complains about inequitable funding arrangements. True, self-governing schools get some grants that are not available to their LEA-maintained counterparts. However, those grants reflect the additional responsibilities of grant-maintained schools and the additional expenditure they face, which LEA schools do not face.
The real difference in the financial arrangements of grant-maintained and non-grant-maintained schools is not the total amount of money but the fact that grant-maintained schools have control over 100 per cent. of their budget, so that they make all the spending decisions.
Mr. Pryke went on to attack the common funding formula on the grounds that it is a crude national formula

479
which will not take account of local variations. Yet the formula proposed includes an element for pupils with special educational needs, an element for fixed costs—which will be of particular help to small popular schools—and an element to take account of the additional costs associated with operating a school on more than one site.
Schools have already begun to feel the advantages of heavily pupil-led funding under LMS. The common funding formula will mean that, for the first time, each child can expect educational provision based on a genuine assessment of need rather than accident of birth within a particular LEA boundary.
Elsewhere in his article, Mr. Pryke spoke about inspection arrangements. Frankly, it is absurd to suggest that there has been no evaluation of the performance of GM schools—or, indeed, that there has been some kind of cover-up of the findings. Her Majesty's inspectors published a report earlier this year. Their findings were that, in general, self-governing schools have improved morale among staff and resulted in better management of resources and a much better climate within the classroom for effective education and improved pupil attendance. Those are the firm foundations for higher standards and improved examination results.
Under the new inspection regime, all schools that are wholly or mainly dependent on public funds—including, of course, grant-maintained schools—will be inspected on a regular four-yearly basis. The registered inspectors' reports will be published, as will the governors' action plans drawn up in response.
The Department for Education closely monitors the admission arrangements of self-governing schools. When a school applies for self-governing status, it must include in its proposals details of its admissions arrangements. Once those arrangements have been agreed with the Department, they cannot be changed without the prior approval of the Secretary of State.
Grant-maintained schools have a range of responsibilities beyond those of LEA-maintained schools. They are directly accountable— through governors— to parents and the local community. That is the local democratic base.
480
New arrangements such as those for the Funding Agency for Schools are not about structures that interfere with day-to-day running of individual schools. The FAS will most certainly not be a replacement LEA.
Once 10 per cent. of pupils in a local education authority sector are being educated in grant-maintained schools, the responsibility to ensure sufficient surplus places will be shared between the LEA and the funding agency. That division of responsibility recognises the increasing contribution to the provision of places made by grant-maintained schools.
Each party will be able to act only in relation to its own sector. The FAS will have the power to propose the expansion, alteration, or discontinuance of grant-maintained schools, while the LEA will retain these powers with respect to LEA schools. The FAS will therefore be able to reduce surplus places in grant-maintained schools in precisely the same way that LEAs can act to reduce surplus places in LEA-maintained schools.
Mr. Pryke claims that, because the LEA is not responsible for self-governing schools, the grant-maintained system is unaccountable and undemocratic. That is patent nonsense. No school goes grant-maintained without the majority of parents' approval; that is real democracy at work. Once grant-maintained schools have been established, they are directly accountable to parents and pupils.
I have listened with interest to, and I agree overwhelmingly with, what my hon. Friends have said. I believe, without doubt, that the grant-maintained sector will continue to grow and thrive, both in Kent and across the country as a whole. In years to come, people will wonder why we ever doubted that schools could run themselves on behalf of parents, pupils and their immediate community without being controlled by their local education authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what effects the reduction in the number of cases coming before the criminal courts is likely to have on the level of legal aid expenditure contained in the Supply estimates.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The 1993–94 Supply estimate provision for legal aid is £1,284 million, net of receipts. Based on figures for expenditure to the end of August, we now forecast that net expenditure for legal aid in the current year is likely to be £1,254 million. At this stage in the year, however, there is inevitably still uncertainty about the eventual outturn. The reduction in the forecast is largely related to criminal legal aid. The changes in eligibility introduced in April, the effect of which was almost entirely in relation to civil legal aid and advice and assistance, appear to be having .broadly the effect anticipated.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Environment and Development Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution was made by the Overseas Development Administration to the Partnerships for Change conference on environment and development held by Her Majesty's Government in Manchester on 20 to 22 September; and if he will make a statement on the support given by his Department to the participating countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration was actively involved in preparations for the conference with the Department of Environment, which had responsibility for organising the event. The ODA was also represented at the conference.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what investigations are currently being made by Her Majesty's Goverment or the EC into possible widespread incidence of epidemic disease and illness in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result of the effects of implementation of economic and diplomatic sanctions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he received the report prepared for the European Community by the Belgian ambassador to Belgrade on 17 September regarding the effects on humanitarian and medical provisions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result of economic and diplomatic sanctions; and if he will make a statement;
  266
  (3) what reports he has received into the medical and humanitarian situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a result of the implementation of economic and diplomatic sanctions; what assessment he has made of the effect on medical and humanitarian services and facilities as a resuslt of such sanctions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The incidence of epidemic disease and illness throughout the former Yugoslavia, including Serbia and Montenegro, is the subject of frequent investigation by the World Health Organisation which is responsible for co-ordinating the international relief effort. We have made a substantial contribution including a further £10 million in medical assistance announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 26 August. Our total contributions, directly and through the European Community, is £141 million. Although we have not received a report prepared by the Belgian ambassador, we have received a great many reports from other sources, including that prepared by the all-party parliamentary group about humanitarian aid and UN sanctions.

  Sanctions applied to Serbia and Montenegro under UN Security Council resolutions Nos. 757 and 820 specifically exclude foods and medicines, subject to notification procedures in the United Nations sanctions committee. We have worked hard in this committee to ensure that genuine humanitarian shipments are expedited.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support moves lo allow the Federal Yugoslav authorities to fly humanitarian and medical support directly into Belgrade airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We recognise the importance of providing rapid humanitarian and medical support to those most in need, in the former Yugoslavia regardless of their origins.

  The Belgrade authorities have made no applications to fly humanitarian supplies directly into Belgrade. The UN sanctions committee would need to decide whether this would be permitted under existing UN resolutions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Community Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to develop an overall assessment of community care housing needs for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The assessment of housing needs associated with care in the community is for local housing authorities, in consultation with social services authorities, as they develop their housing strategy statements; these are intended to address all housing needs in their areas.

  Office Running Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of running his Office during the last 12 months; and what was the cost at today's prices(a) five and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.
  267
  Comparative information is available only for complete financial years. The costs, at 1993–94 prices, of running my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Office in 1983–84 and 1988–89 and the budget for 1993–94 are as follows:

  £000

  1983–84

  5,114

  1988–89

  8,558

  1993–94

  110,710

  1 Budget.

  Notes:

  1. The figures represent the cost of 10 Downing Street and Chequers borne on the Votes of the Cabinet Office (OPSS) and its predecessors. Over the period in question the following changes have occurred to the basis of the costs:
  in 1983–84 the then Property Services Agency introduced charges for buildings and services;
  in 1984–85 charges were introduced for the Government Car Service and the Service personnel at Chequers; and
  in 1986–87 the cost of office services was included for the first time.

  2. Costs are shown in the year in which the expenditure was made. Because of billing delays this is not always in the financial year in which the goods or services were provided.

  THORP
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 687, if he has yet had the opportunity to reply to the letter handed to him on 15 June by a Japanese group in respect of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant; if he will send a copy of his reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy replied on 22 September on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Overseas Staff and Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the cost for the current financial year of his Department having(a) premises and (b) personnel overseas; and what were the comparable figures for (a) 12, (b) 24, (c) 36 and (d) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The office of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister maintains neither premises nor staff overseas.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus.

  United States-United Kingdom Relations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on present relations between the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.
  268
  The United Kingdom and the United States have a strong and fruitful relationship at all levels.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Mr. Patrick Doyle
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a list of all meetings held and correspondence exchanged in the past year between his Department and Mr. Patrick Doyle, now of AST Training; what was the nature of such meetings or correspondence; what plans he has to meet Mr. Patrick Doyle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since the Office of Public Service and Science was established in April 1992 I have not met Mr. Patrick Doyle and I have no plans to meet him. My Department has no record of any correspondence received from Mr. Doyle or of any meetings with him.

  Technology Foresight Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent contributions have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy's project on the responsiveness of scientific and technological institutions to environmental change.

  Mr. Davis
  The United Kingdom offered staffing support for this review which concluded with a report in 1991. The United Kingdom continues to support the work of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy in its current programme of work.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  European Court (Phone Calls)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee, pursuant to his answer of 17 February,Official Report, column 217, what steps have been taken to ensure that hon. Members are not charged for telephone calls to the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The European Court of Justice is now an authorised destination which hon. Members may dial direct at no cost to themselves. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to ensure that an amended list of directly dialled numbers to European destinations is made available to Members.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  VAT
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the imposition of VAT on food upon the food consumption, nutritional intake and health of low-income families.

  Sir John Cope
  It would not be appropriate to comment before the Budget on 30 November.

  Accountants
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will set out the criteria applied by the Government in considering whether Government Departments or public sector bodies should consider doing business with private sector accountants where there is a potential conflict of interest;

  (2) on what grounds his Departments and public sector bodies decline to do business with certain partners of accountancy firms; what further plans he has to exclude particular accountancy firms from Government business; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The grounds on which Departments decide to do business with any accountancy firm will depend upon the individual circumstances of each appointment.

  In general, Departments seek to ensure that there are no matters which could reduce a firm's effectiveness in performing the services for which it is to be appointed and that there are no matters which make it inappropriate for Government to have business dealings with the firm.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the total number of audit appointments awarded by Government Departments to private accountancy firms; what is the total for the period of the last 12 months; what is the number in each Government Department; what proportion of these audit appointments were(a) held by the six largest accountancy firms, and (b) by other accountancy firms, again divided by Department; what proportion and total number of audit appointments carrying fees in excess of £25,000 is held by (i) the six largest accountancy firms and (ii) other accountancy firms; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on awarding audit appointments to firms other than the six largest accountancy firms;

  (2) what is the total number of consultancy appointments awarded by Government Departments to private accountancy firms; what is the total for the period of the last 12 months to date; what is the number in each Government Department; what proportion of these consultancy appointments were (a) held by the six largest accountancy firms and (b) by other accountancy firms, again divided by Department; what proportion and total number of consultancy appointments carrying fees in excess of £25,000 is held by (i) the six largest accountancy firms and (ii) other accountancy firms; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on awarding consultancy appointments to firms other than the six largest accountancy firms.

  Sir John Cope
  The information sought on such appointments awarded by Government Departments to private sector accountancy firms is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government's policy on awarding these appointments is that firms are considered on their merits for the work involved in each appointment.

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the quality of consultancy work done for Government Departments by Touche Ross; if he will list the major commissions 270
  currently being undertaken by that firm for the Government; and what plans he has to review advice purchased from Touche Ross in the past.

  Sir John Cope
  The information sought on consultancy work is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners from England and Wales have applied for transfer to Northern Ireland prisons in the last 12 months;

  (2) how many prisoners have been transferred permanently from prisons in England and Wales to prisons in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months;

  (3) how many prisoners have been transferred temporarily from prisons in England and Wales to prisons in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months;

  (4) how many prisoners transferred on a temporary basis to Northern Ireland from England and Wales in the last 12 months have since been made permanent transferees.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the 12 months to 30 September 1993, 50 prisoners applied for transfer to prisons in Northern Ireland. Of these, one prisoner was transferred on a permanent basis; four prisoners were temporarily transferred and four prisoners' requests were either refused or withdrawn. None of the prisoners temporarily transferred in this time subsequently had their transfers made permanent. However, four prisoners previously temporarily transferred were granted further temporary transfers and two prisoners previously transferred were granted permanent transfers.

  Mr. A. C. S. Benton
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in the last three years over the case of Mr. A. C. S. Benton, of Bloxwich, Walsall, when it is likely he will be able to decide on whether the conviction should be referred to the Appeal Court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Mr. Benton has made numerous representations over the past three years. The hon. Member was advised in June 1992 that no grounds could be found for referring Mr. Benton's conviction to the Court of Appeal. Since then further representations have been received. These are the subject of current police inquiries. When the police report is to hand, my right hon. and learned Friend will consider whether there are grounds on which it would be right for him to take any action in respect of Mr. Benton's conviction.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to hear from the West Midlands police on the case of Mr. A. C. S. Benton of Bloxwich, Walsall.

  Mr. Maclean
  The inquiries which are being made by West Midlands police into Mr. Benton's case are taking longer than expected, but I understand from the chief constable that they will be completed shortly.
  271
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he sent on Dr. Candy's report on the case of Mr. A. C. S. Benton of Bloxwich, Walsall to the West Midlands police; and when he expects to have a response to the report.

  Mr. Maclean
  Dr. Candy's report was received in the Home Office on 11 August and sent on to West Midlands police the following day. I expect to receive a response once the West Midlands police have considered Dr. Candy's report in the light of a further expert report which they are awaiting.

  Electoral Registration
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts his Department is making to encourage voters to enrol on the electoral register; what specific measures are planned to encourage more women to ensure they are on the register; and if there are any plans to target lone-parent mothers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have undertaken a national television advertising campaign in support of electoral registration for the first time this year at a cost of £620,000. The advertising was targeted particularly at groups of the population, such as young people and ethnic minorities, shown by research to be less likely to register to vote. We have no evidence to suggest that women or single-parent families are among these groups and we have no plans to target them.

  Sheehy Inquiry
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to announce his decision on the implementation of the Sheehy inquiry into police responsibilities and awards.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in full the terms of reference of the Sheehy inquiry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The terms of reference of the inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 6 July 1992, cols. 43–44.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what inspections are carried out by his Department on establishments using animals to test impact consequences on aero-engines.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. I understand that the animals in question are humanely killed before the tests take place. Such work therefore falls outside the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is concerned only with experiments using living animals.

  Wymott Prison
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report of the inquiry by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons into the recent disturbance of HM prison Wymott will be published.
  272
  Mr. Howard
  The report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons of his inquiry into the disturbance at Wymott prison is being published today. A copy of the report is being placed in the Library.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Government have committed to victim support in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Maclean
  Home Office funding of the national charity, Victim Support, in the last five years is set out in the table:

  Financial year

  Home Office grant (£ million)

  Percentage increase over previous year

  1989–90

  3·910

  43

  1990–91

  4·735

  21

  1991–92

  5·670

  20

  1992–93

  7·260

  28

  1993–94

  8·375

  15

  Security Forces' Equipment
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research has been carried out into the use and possible side-effects of electroshock equipment within the United Kingdom;

  (2) what official guidelines or regulations are applicable for the use of (a) electroshock equipment by the police, prison and security forces, (b) the tear gas agent oleoresin capsicum, (c) Frag 12 exploding ammunition and (d) dum dum bullets in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In 1990 the Forensic Science Service published a theoretical assessment of the effects of electric shock weapons.

  None of these devices or substances is used against the general public, suspects or offenders, by the police, prison services or the security forces in the United Kingdom.

  Ministerial Broadcasts
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which he has spoken on the BBC Radio 4 programme "Today", and the topics in each case.

  Mr. Howard
  I receive numerous requests for interviews from the media, covering the whole range of my Department's responsibilities. I accept many of them, including requests from "Today".

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Moated Sites
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action his Department is currently taking to record and preserve moated sites of archaeological interest in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  English Heritage's monuments protection programme is evaluating all known archaeological remains
  273
  in England, including moated sites, and identifying those which may be suitable for scheduling. This exercise is expected to result in a very significant increase in the number of scheduled monuments.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the scheduling of monuments in Wales.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much was spent on official hospitality in his Department in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 20 October 1993]: My Department has incurred expenditure of £40,759 on official hospitality during the financial year 1992–93. This total includes official hospitality expenditure incurred by the royal parks and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government endorse the contents of the address given by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to the United Nations Committee of 24 on 14 July.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We shall continue to fulfill our obligations to non-self-governing territories under chapter XI of the United Nations charter. The situation in Gibraltar is, however, complicated by historical realities, particularly the treaty of Utrecht. We stand by our commitment to the people of Gibraltar enshrined in the constitution.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Saudi Government about the religious persecution of Florencio Madriaga and Roque Atilon.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of these cases but have no specific information about them. We and our EC partners seek opportunities to discuss human rights, including freedom of worship, with the Saudi authorities, who can be in no doubt of the strength of our views on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last did so during his visit to Saudi Arabia last month.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rabies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on current measures to prevent rabies from entering the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on 16 June 1992,Official Report, column 455–56.

  Fish Farms
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions her Department has had on the implications of siting fish farm enterprises close to environmentally sensitive locations; and whether she will issue written guidance.

  Mr. Jack
  The siting of fish farms in inland waters is regulated by the town and country planning system, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what business opportunities her Department's delegation that visited Turkey from 9 to 12 May identified in the fish farming sector.

  Mr. Jack
  During his visit to Turkey from 9 to 12 May this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was accompanied by a team of businessmen including a representative from the fish farming industry. I understand that a number of potential opportunities were identified including in particular joint ventures for the development of fish farms. These have been notified to the industry. The fish farming sector in Turkey is at an early stage of development and the potential for business exists in the medium and long term.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will meet the Countryside Commission to discuss its programme of assessing the impact of renewable energy technologies on farmland and agriculture.

  Mr. Jack
  While I am always willing to meet the Countryside Commission to discuss matters of mutual interest, I understand that its research into the broader implications of renewable energy for the countryside has only recently been commissioned. I shall be pleased to consider the Commission's advice when that research is complete.

  School Milk
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received regarding European Commission proposals to cut the subsidy on school milk; and what discussions have taken place on the matter in the EC Agriculture Council.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department received a number of representations from the dairy trade and local authorities opposing the Commission's proposal for a 50 per cent. cut in the rate of school milk subsidy. At the Agriculture Council on 20 to 21 September the United Kingdom, supported by several other member states, argued that the Commission's proposal was too drastic a measure for achieving budgetary savings and would threaten the viability of a popular scheme which had played an important role in encouraging consumption of milk and milk products. In the light of these arguments the Council agreed to limit the reduction in subsidy to 25 per cent. and to find the balance of the necessary savings by making technical adjustments aimed at improving the cost-effectiveness of the scheme. The Government are satisfied
  275
  that this represents a sensible compromise which safeguards the viability of the scheme while at the same time taking account of the severe pressure on the Community budget.

  Environmental Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how her Department was represented at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe meeting on methodological issues of environmental statistics, held in Geneva on 20 to 23 September.

  Mr. Jack
  My Department's interest was represented by a member of the Government Statistical Service at a meeting on 20 to 23 September 1993 for a joint UN/ECG and Eurostat work session on specific methodological problems in environmental statistics. The meeting was held in Bratislava.

  Equine Viral Arteritis
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures her Department has taken to establish which countries would be willing to accept United Kingdom exports of equidae vaccinated for equine viral arteritis; and if she will list those countries which(a) will and (b) will not grant access.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Ministry's Chief Veterinary Officer has written or is about to write to his counterparts in a number of third countries inquiring as to the animal health conditions which would have to be met to enable equidae vaccinated against equine viral arteritis to be eligible for import into those countries.

  Current bilateral agreements with Australia and Barbados preclude the export to those countries of equidae vaccinated against EVA. The United States of America will accept vaccinated horses.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of the survey on the abundance and distribution of small cetaceans in the North sea; and which other countries are involved.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1993–94 my Department will contribute some £167,000 towards five cetacean research projects. The projects are:

  1. Population biology of cetaceans

  2. The effects of environmental change on whale populations

  3. Interaction between cetaceans and man

  4. ASCOBANS survey of cetaceans in the North sea and Baltic

  5. Enhancing the acoustic detectability of fishing nets.

  England

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland non-LFA

  Scotland LFA

  United Kingdom

  Main scheme:

  Cereals

  2,174,093

  14,062

  5,507

  277,429

  40,134

  2,511,225

  Oilseeds

  307,340

  1,353

  498

  56,731

  4,945

  370,867

  Proteins

  198,071

  816

  43

  4,101

  49

  203,080

  Vining peas1

  20,302

  —

  —

  2,795

  198

  23,295

  Linseed

  151,897

  2,250

  230

  1,415

  —

  155,792

  Set-aside of which:

  481,069

  3,028

  1,193

  61,617

  8,725

  555,632

  Growing non-food crops

  51,084

  151

  —

  2,448

  56

  53,739

  Whales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the purpose of the meeting held in London on or around 11 October between the British Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission and other commissioners; which countries were represented; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission held talks in London on 11 October with colleagues from Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United States of America. These were informal, and concentrated on the forthcoming plans of the IWC to hold an intersessional meeting next February on the establishment of a southern ocean sanctuary, in preparation for decisions at the 46th annual meeting of the commission.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information the International Whaling Commission has regarding the export of whale meat from Norway to Japan; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The International Whaling Commission has no information on the commercial export of whale meat from Norway to Japan. However, I understand there has been a recent attempt to smuggle whale meat out of Norway which was discovered by the Norwegian authorities. Our embassy in Oslo confirms that this matter is currently under police investigation and we await reports from the Norwegian Government. The Government have made their views crystal clear on Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling activity and to proceed with their lethal scientific programme. We have pressed the Norwegian Government at the highest levels to reconsider their position and will continue to do so. Nobody should doubt that this is a matter of considerable concern to the Government.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the area figures in hectares on a county basis for(a) applications under the main scheme of the arable area payments scheme in 1993 apportioned to (i) cereals, (ii) oilseeds, (iii) protein crops and (iv) set-aside and (b) applications under the simplified scheme of the arable area payments scheme in 1993 apportioned to (x) cereals, (y) oilseeds and (z) protein crops.

  Mrs. Shephard
  The following table gives provisional figures for the five separate yield regions. Because applicants had to submit a single area aid application in respect of all their land, it is not possible to provide accurate figures on a county basis. I will, however, let the hon. Member have area figures related to the county in which the applicant's main holding is based as soon as they are available.
  277

  England

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland non-LFA

  Scotland LFA

  United Kingdom

  Simplified Scheme:

  Cereals

  205,825

  22,184

  225,587

  21,213

  35,229

  310,038

  Oilseeds

  1,258

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,258

  Proteins

  2,323

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,323

  1 Not eligible in 1994.

  2 Includes a small area of oilseeds which cannot be identified separately for reasons of confidentiality.

  Fisheries Council
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 20 October; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Council of EC Fisheries Ministers on 20 October, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Since accession, fishing by Spanish and Portuguese vessels in Community waters has been under arrangements which limit their numbers and the waters to which they have access. Under the Fisheries Section of the Act of Accession for Spain and Portugal, any decisions to change the arrangements for these countries would have to be made by the end of 1993.

  At the Council, the Commission put forward a proposal for a Council regulation.

  In substance, the proposal would give all EC member countries access to Community waters within the confines —endorsed at the June Council—of no change to the requirements of no increase in fishing effort and the preservation of relative stability. The document did not deal with the constraints which would be applied to Spain and Portugal under these proposals. Effectively, we were being asked to sign a blank cheque.

  I said this was unacceptable and requested that Council should deal with all aspects of this matter together. I would need to be satisfied on the arrangements to apply in the Irish box and the North sea; on how fishing effort would be capped at the present level; and on how member states' shares of available quotas—"relative stability"—would be respected. Other member states made similar points.

  The Commission presented a proposal which specifies the minimum information needed in fishing vessel licences throughout the Community. This should prove a useful tool in ensuring common standards of enforcement but it must not encroach on existing national licensing rules.

  The Council discussed the market situation for fish and asked the Commission to review the existing minimum import price arrangements for each fish species and, as appropriate, to use its powers to continue these temporary measures until the end of the year or to adjust them. The Council will return to the question of the market situation at its December meeting.

  I raised the question of industrial fishing. Currently there is considerable concern about its possibly harmful effects on the marine environment and the marine food chain and the consequences for fish stocks and sea birds. I am pleased to say that the Commissioner endorsed the importance of this issue and agreed that the Council should discuss it further.

  No matter on the agenda was listed for a vote and no vote was taken.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Russian Elections
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if arrangements are to be made for the Russian elections in December to be observed by hon. Members.

  Mr. Newton
  We shall be responding positively to the Russian Government's invitation to send observers to monitor the parliamentary elections in Russia in December. The arrangements are under discussion.

ENVIRONMENT

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings his Department has had with the Institute of Waste Management on inherited liabilities and prospective restoration of contaminated land.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department liaises regularly with the Institute of Waste Management to discuss a wide range of environmental and waste management issues. However, the subject of inherited liabilities and prospective restoration has not been discussed in recent meetings.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the paper on civil liability and contaminated land by his Department's contaminated land and liabilities division, presented to the third environmental insurance conference held in London on 15 October.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have placed a copy in the Library along with a copy of a speech on the same subject which I delivered to the British Bankers Association on 13 October 1993.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the review of the priority areas of the Rural Development Commission announced on 30 July.

  Mr. Yeo
  I look forward to receiving the Rural Development Commission's recommendations shortly and expect it to make an announcement of the new rural development areas thereafter.

  Noise Abatement Zones
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached on consideration of the Building Research Establishment's report in relation to noise abatement zones; and if he will make a statement.
  279
  Mr. Yeo
  My Department is considering the effectiveness of noise abatement zones in the light of the findings of the Building Research Establishment's "Review of Noise Abatement Zones in England and Wales 1976–1992". The review showed that the procedure for establishing and monitoring NAZs was complex and resource intensive for all the parties involved. In reaching conclusions, we must balance the need to limit the regulatory burden on businesses with the continuing need to deal effectively with noise pollution.

  Open University
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet educationists at the Open university to discuss the benefits to environmental communication of and future developments to the new Open university course on enterprise and the environment.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department would be interested to see any assessment of the impact of the Open university's course on enterprise and the environment.

  EC Law
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the European Commission's 10th annual report on the monitoring of the application of Community law, Com (93) 320 final, so far as it refers to matters for which his Department has responsibility.

  Mr. Yeo
  We welcome the environment section of the Commission's report and look forward to debating it in the Environment Council in due course, as agreed on a United Kingdom initiative during our presidency.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the number of first-time buyers receiving tax relief on mortgage interest; what percentage of mortgage holders they represent; what percentage of mortgage advances in cash terms they represent; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  According to the 1991 Labour Force Survey, 3.5 million first-time buyer households in England were purchasing their property with a mortgage. They represent 42 per cent. of all mortgage holders.

  The Labour Force Survey does not provide information on the amount of mortgage finance borrowed by first time buyers. However, using information collected by the Department from building societies and banks it is estimated that in 1992 first time buyers' mortgage advances accounted for 45 per cent. of all such advances.

  EC Environment Institute
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what benefits accrue to the United Kingdom from resources committed to the European Commission's Environment Institute in Ispra.

  Mr. Yeo
  The nature of the work undertaken within the various component institutes of the Commission's joint research centre, including the Environment Institute, is such that the resultant benefits are designed to accrue broadly to the European Community as a whole. As a280
  consequence, the benefits that flow from Community resources committed to these activities are shared by all 12 member states, including the United Kingdom. The specific benefits of the JRC institutes' activities accruing to any one member state are, however, not easy to isolate and are not routinely assessed.

  Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has t6 make changes to(a) section 58, (b) section 59(1), (c) section 60, (d) section 62, (e) section 64 and (f) section 65 of the Housing Act 1985;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce new legislation on amendments to existing legislation relating to the provisions of part III of the Housing Act 1985.

  Sir George Young
  In order to ensure fairer access to permanent social housing for those who need it, the Government propose to reform the homelessness provisions in the Housing Act 1985. We want to restore confidence in the housing waiting list, and to get away from the present position where, in some areas, the only route in to social housing may be to become statutorily homeless. We will be consulting on our proposals in due course, which will cover steps local authorities can take to prevent people from becoming homeless, and to increase the supply of rented housing in co-operation with private landlords.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made at the negotiations held in Geneva in September on(a) financing and (b) ratification of the United Nations convention on climate change.

  Mr. Yeo
  At the international negotiating committee meeting in August, good progress was made towards preparing for the first conference of parties to the convention, which is expected to take place in Berlin early in 1995. On financing, detailed preliminary discussions took place on support for developing countries through the global environment facility, the interim financial mechanism of the convention. Thirty-six countries have now ratified the convention. Fifty ratifications are needed to bring the convention into force. The United Kingdom has undertaken, along with our G7 and EC partners, to ratify by the end of 1993.

  Annual Environmental Review
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for The Environment what was the original publication date of the annual environmental review; when he now expects the review report to be published; and what is the reason for the delay.

  Mr. Yeo
  We will publish the third year report in the series of White Papers on the Environment in the new year. This will allow us to take account both of the outcome of the annual public expenditure survey and production of the United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development. We had no other date in mind and there has been no delay.

  Noise
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints relating to noise have been(a) reported to local authorities and (b) investigated by local authorities under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department of the Environment "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" HMSO 1992 indicates that during 1990–91, 136,609 complaints about noise were received by local authorities, relating to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Of these, 31,721 were considered to be justified as statutory nuisances and in 6,113 cases abatement notices were served.

  The 1990 Act came into operation on 1 January 1991 and separate figures for the number of complaints investigated under that Act in 1990–91 are not available.

  Community Care Programme
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of dwelling units which need to be built or converted each year, for the next three years, in order to provide accommodation to meet the requirements of the community care programme; and what is his estimate of the cost of this provision.

  Sir George Young
  Community care policy came into full operation earlier this year; its impact on housing demand is expected to be gradual and progressive. Local authorities include information about community care in their housing strategy statements, which inform local decision-making about resource allocation.

  Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the third year report on the Government's environmental strategy set out in the 1990 White Paper, "This Common Inheritance".

  Mr. Yeo
  The Government will publish the third year report on the White Paper, "This Common Inheritance' in the new year.

  Valuation Offices
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reasons why he has asked his Department's valuation offices to ask their tribunal members if they are currently parish or town councillors.

  Mr. Baldry
  From time to time, the Department seeks information about trends in the composition of the

  Dwellings on valuation lists held by English local authorities on 7 June 1993

  Thousands

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Total

  Dwellings on lists

  5,258

  3,842

  4,388

  2,923

  1,819

  986

  751

  121

  20,089

  Exempt dwellings

  192

  110

  104

  60

  32

  18

  14

  4

  533

  Dwellings subject to disabled reduction

  —

  19

  23

  17

  12

  7

  7

  2

  87

  Diplomats dwellings

  0·1

  0·3

  0·2

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·8

  0·6

  2·4

  Dwellings entitled to a single discount

  2,155

  1,261

  1,223

  695

  366

  168

  114

  18

  6,000

  Dwellings entitled to two discounts

  150

  90

  97

  64

  44

  29

  32

  13

  519

  282
  membership of the valuation tribunal service. In this case, the question related to membership of all local authorities, not just parish or town councils.

  Kirkstall Valley, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will immediately call in the proposals by Berkshire Properties to develop the Kirkstall valley i n Leeds and order a public inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Should they be minded to grant planning consent for the proposed development in the Kirstall valley, the Leeds development corporation has assured my Department that the planning application will be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that he can decide whether or not it should be called-in for public inquiry.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he had received in the consultation excercise on THORP before 4 October; how many of these were in favour of THORP going ahead; and how many against.

  Mr. Yeo
  Over 40,000 responses were received during the consultation exercise, of which more than half arrived in the last two days of the consultation. The responses are still being counted and assessed. More detailed figures will be made available once all the responses have been considered.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his latest estimate of the total number in each council band in England of(a) dwellings, (b) exempt dwellings, (c) chargeable dwellings, (e) chargeable dwellings entitled to a single discount for the purposes of council tax, (f) chargeable dwellings that are entitled to two discounts for the purposes of council tax and (g) total equivalent number of dwellings after discounts, exemptions, and disabled relief;

  (2) what is his latest estimate number of band D equivalents in each council tax band in England;

  (3) what is his latest estimate of the number of dwellings on the valuation list in England that were exempt in each class A to Q.

  Mr. Gummer
  pursuant to the answer, 22 July 1993, Official Report, column 346: The information requested is as follows:
  283

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Total

  Equivalent number of dwellings after discounts, exemptions and disabled relief

  4,472

  3,376

  3,924

  2,652

  1,668

  911

  687

  104

  17,794

  Number of Band D equivalents1

  2,981

  2,626

  3,488

  2,652

  2,039

  1,316

  1,145

  207

  16,454

  1 Excluding contributions in lieu in respect of Class O dwellings.

  Exempt dwellings on valuation lists held by English local authorities on 7 June 1993, by class

  (thousands)

  Class and description

  Number of exempt dwellings

  A

  Empty dwellings where works are required, under way or recently completed

  73

  B

  Empty dwellings owned by charities

  1

  C

  Dwellings left empty and unfurnished

  183

  D

  Dwellings left empty by prisoners

  1

  E

  Dwellings left empty by patients in hospital and care homes

  30

  F

  Dwellings left empty by deceased persons

  48

  G

  Dwellings which are unfit etc.

  8

  H

  Empty clergy dwellings

  1

  I

  Dwellings left empty by people receiving care

  5

  J

  Dwellings left empty by people providing care

  1

  K

  Dwellings left empty by students

  2

  L

  Repossessed dwellings

  36

  M

  Halls of residence

  7

  N

  Dwellings occupied solely by students or school leavers

  61

  O

  Aimed forces' accommodation

  60

  P

  Visiting forces' accommodation

  15

  Q

  Dwellings left empty by bankrupts

  —

  Total exempt dwellings

  533

EDUCATION

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide for all local education authorities the percentage of total schools expenditure allocated to primary schools for the latest year for which figures are available and list them in rank order.

  Mr. Forth
  The table sets out, for each local education authority, the percentage of the aggregated schools budget allocated to primary schools for the financial year 1993–94, and is derived from budget statements available to the Department as at 7 July.

  1993–94 budgets: Percentage of aggregated schools budget allocated to primary schools

  Local education authority

  Rank order

  Percentage of ASB

  City of London

  1

  100·00

  Wandsworth

  2

  79·66

  Hillingdon

  3

  74·04

  Baling

  4

  72·42

  Bromley

  5

  69·19

  Lambeth

  6

  67·28

  Sutton

  7

  65·79

  Southwark

  8

  63·62

  Gloucestershire

  9

  63·47

  Kensington/Chelsea

  10

  63·11

  Islington

  11

  62·93

  Harrow

  12

  62·87

  Croydon

  13

  61·88

  Surrey

  14

  61·85

  284

  Local education authority

  Rank order

  Percentage of ASB

  Merton

  15

  60·49

  Hackney

  16

  60·40

  Warwickshire

  17

  60·01

  Brent

  18

  59·78

  Essex

  19

  59·73

  Buckinghamshire

  20

  59·24

  Haringey

  21

  59·02

  Tower Hamlets

  22

  58·13

  Hampshire

  23

  57·98

  Manchester

  24

  57·88

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  25

  57·69

  Knowsley

  26

  57·50

  Tameside

  27

  57·47

  Salford

  28

  57·05

  Lewisham

  29

  57·01

  Birmingham

  30

  56·94

  Waltham Forest

  31

  56·88

  Cambridgeshire

  32

  56·77

  Lincolnshire

  33

  55·73

  Dudley

  34

  55·71

  Sandwell

  35

  55·71

  Kingston

  36

  55·43

  Trafford

  37

  55·26

  Kent

  38

  55·07

  Humberside

  39

  55·04

  Norfolk

  40

  54·85

  Calderdale

  41

  54·82

  Cumbria

  42

  54·49

  Bury

  43

  53·91

  Wolverhampton

  44

  53·89

  Barnsley

  45

  53·80

  South Tyneside

  46

  53·77

  Newham

  47

  53·52

  Hounslow

  48

  53·09

  Sheffield

  49

  52·99

  Derbyshire

  50

  52·86

  Rochdale

  51

  52·60

  Greenwich

  52

  52·58

  Bolton

  53

  52·53

  Cleveland

  54

  52·51

  Lancashire

  55

  51·98

  Sunderland

  56

  51·90

  Liverpool

  57

  51·83

  Barnet

  58

  51·81

  Leeds

  59

  51·81

  Gateshead

  60

  51·57

  Richmond

  61

  51·51

  Kirklees

  62

  50·69

  Stockport

  63

  50·61

  Coventry

  64

  50·34

  Westminster

  65

  50 19

  Durham

  66

  50·18

  Solihull

  67

  50·17

  Wirral

  68

  50·14

  Avon

  69

  50·12

  Leicestershire

  70

  49·94

  Shropshire

  71

  49 81

  Staffordshire

  72

  49·80

  Wakefield

  73

  49·74

  Devon

  74

  49·74

  East Sussex

  75

  49·72

  Hertfordshire

  76

  49·57

  Wai sail

  77

  49·45

  Berkshire

  78

  49·41

  St· Helens

  79

  49·27

  Oldham

  80

  49·13

  Wiltshire

  81

  49·12

  Nottinghamshire

  82

  49·02

  285

  Local education authority

  Rank order

  Percentage of ASB

  Rotherham

  83

  48·76

  Dorset

  84

  48·73

  West Sussex

  85

  48·70

  Cheshire

  86

  48·55

  Wigan

  87

  48·40

  Cornwall

  88

  48·40

  Northamptonshire

  89

  47·97

  Bexley

  90

  47·91

  Enfield

  91

  47·56

  Sefton

  92

  47·20

  Somerset

  93

  47·15

  Newcastle

  94

  46·87

  Doncaster

  95

  46·46

  Havering

  96

  45·97

  Oxfordshire

  97

  45·44

  Bedfordshire

  98

  45·27

  Hereford/Worcester

  99

  44·85

  Redbridge

  100

  44·22

  North Tyneside

  101

  44

  Camden

  102

  42·45

  286

  Local education authority

  Rank order

  Percentage of ASB

  Bradford

  103

  40·62

  Suffolk

  104

  39·43

  Northumberland

  105

  34·77

  Isle of Eight

  106

  34·14

  Barking

  107

  n/a

  Isles of Scilly

  108

  n/a

  North Yorkshire

  109

  n/a

  Notes to Table

  (1) "n/a" denotes either that no budget statement was available at 7 July, or that Part 1 of the authority's statement did not provide a primary/secondary breakdown of the Aggregated Schools Budget.

  (2) The primary sector's percentage share of a local education authority's Aggregated Schools Budget will be heavily influenced by a variety of factors, including the respective numbers of primary and secondary grant maintained schools in the authority's area: the respective contributions made by schools and further education institutions to the totality of provision for the age-range 16–18: and (in the case of the authorities marked1) the inclusion of special schools' funding within the Aggregated Schools Budget.

EDUCATION

  Hasmonean Preparatory School
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to make a decision on the application by Hasmon6an preparatory school to become a voluntary-aided school.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Technology Colleges
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his Department's proposed budget for the technology college programme for 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how many schools it is proposed will become technology colleges in September 1994.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have not set any budget for the technology colleges programme in 1994–95 or 1995–96, nor have we set a target for the number of schools to begin operating as technology colleges from September 1994. The budget will depend on the number of schools that apply to become technology colleges and their individual needs, and on the outcome of the public expenditure survey.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority those secondary schools which have received funds under the technology schools initiative, stating in each case,(a) the level of funding received and (b) whether the school is a county, voluntary-aided or grant-maintained school.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the table. For schools which have been allocated support in the current financial year, 1993–94, expenditure may not yet have been incurred, and grant or supplementary credit approval may not yet have been claimed from the Department.

  Local education authority and school

  TSI award £ thousands

  Status

  Avon

  Chew Valley School

  250

  County

  Culverhay Boys School

  250

  County

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barking Abbey School

  185

  County

  Bamet

  Mill Hill GM High School

  130

  Grant maintained

  Ravenscroft School

  163

  County

  Whitefield School

  107

  County

  Bamsley

  St. Michael Secondary School

  100

  Voluntary assisted

  The Dearne High School

  250

  County

  Bedfordshire

  Manshead School

  252

  Grant maintained

  Mark Rutherford Upper School

  250

  County

  Stratton Upper School

  190

  County

  Berkshire

  Bulmerse School

  205

  County

  Denbigh High School

  251

  County

  Desborough Comprehensive School

  465

  Grant maintained

  Highdown School

  190

  County

  Reading School

  630

  Grant maintained

  Theale Green School

  222

  County

  288

  Local education authority and school

  TSI award £ thousands

  Status

  Bexley

  Bexleyheath School

  149

  County

  Birmingham

  Arthur Terry School

  200

  County

  Great Barr School

  700

  Grant maintained

  Sheldon Heath School

  207

  County

  Small Heath School

  211

  Grant maintained

  St. John's Wall RC School

  20

  Voluntary assisted

  Bradford

  Greenhead School

  256

  County

  Queensbury School

  190

  County

  Wyke Manor School

  140

  County

  Brent

  Claremont High School

  250

  Grant maintained

  John Kelly Schools

  180

  County

  Preston Manor High School

  250

  County

  Queens Park Community School

  205

  Grant maintained

  St. Gregory's RC High School

  30

  Voluntary assisted

  Bromley

  Bullerswood School for Girls

  375

  Grant maintained

  Kemnal Manor School

  250

  County

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  244

  Grant maintained

  Buckinghamshire

  Beaconsfield High School

  750

  Grant maintained

  John Hampden Grammar School

  193

  County

  Calderdale

  Brooksbank School

  250

  County

  Calder High School

  250

  County

  Ryburn Valley School

  170

  County

  Cambridgeshire

  Deacons School

  300

  Grant maintained

  The King's School

  100

  Grant maintained

  Witchford College

  166

  County

  St. Peter's School

  274

  Grant maintained

  Camden

  Hampstead School

  257

  County

  Cheshire

  Tarporley County High School

  198

  County

  Cleveland

  Bassleton School

  181

  County

  English Martyrs School

  11

  Voluntary assisted

  Manor County Secondary School

  190

  County

  Cleveland

  Northfield County School

  217

  County

  Cornwall

  Falmouth Community School

  210

  County

  Helston Community School

  263

  County

  Saltash School

  250

  County

  Coventry

  Coundon Court School

  260

  County

  Woodway Park Secondary School

  248

  County

  Croydon

  Archbishop Tennison's School

  350

  Voluntary aided

  Lanfranc High School

  265

  County

  Norbury Manor High School for Girls

  250

  County

  Cumbria

  St. Benedict's RC School

  175

  Voluntary assisted

  Victoria High School

  185

  County

  Whitehaven School

  250

  County

  Derbyshire

  289

  Local education authority and school

  TSI award £ thousands

  Status

  Wyndham School

  250

  County

  Ecclesboume School

  780

  Grant maintained

  High View School

  207

  County

  Nertherthorpe School

  300

  Grant maintained

  Devon

  Bideford College

  220

  County

  Exmouth Community College

  254

  County

  Plymstock School

  250

  County

  Sidmouth College

  230

  County

  St. Thomas High School

  203

  County

  Doncaster

  Hayfield School

  230

  County

  Dorset

  Bournemouth School

  546

  Grant maintained

  Ridgewood School

  208

  County

  Dudley

  The Pensnett School

  250

  County

  Durham

  Tanfield School

  221

  County

  Ealing

  Northolt High School

  200

  Grant maintained

  East Sussex

  Tideway School

  205

  County

  Essex

  Helena Romanes School

  241

  County

  Mark Hall School

  271

  County

  Sir Charles Lucas School

  170

  County

  The Hylands School

  250

  County

  Thomas Lord Audley School

  250

  County

  Westcliffe High School for Boys

  280

  Grant maintained

  Gloucestershire

  Beaufort School

  185

  County

  Farmors School

  250

  County

  Saintbridge Technology School

  135

  Grant maintained

  The Crypt School

  250

  Grant maintained

  Hackney

  Kingsland School

  151

  County

  Skinners Company Upper Girls School

  50

  Voluntary assisted

  Hampshire

  Applemore School

  250

  Grant maintained

  Connaught School

  141

  County

  Haringey

  SS David & Katherine's School

  27

  Voluntary assisted

  White Hart Lane School

  200

  County

  Harrow

  Canons High School

  250

  County

  Park High School

  210

  County

  Whitmore High School

  250

  County

  Hereford&Worcester

  Minster High School

  186

  County

  Hertfordshire

  Beaumont School

  500

  County

  Bishops Stortford School

  175

  Grant maintained

  Rickmansworth School

  250

  Grant maintained

  Watford Grammar School for Boys

  180

  Grant maintained

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  400

  Grant maintained

  Westfield School

  200

  County

  Hillingdon

  Northwood School

  400

  Grant maintained

  Swakeleys School

  203

  County

  290

  Local education authority and school

  TSI award £ thousands

  Status

  Hounslow

  Heston Community School

  147

  County

  Humberside

  Headlands School

  200

  County

  St. Bede's RC School

  240

  Voluntary assisted

  The Immingham School

  230

  County

  Whitgift School

  195

  County

  Isle of Wight

  Cowes County High School

  175

  County

  Islington

  Elizabeth G Anderson School

  122

  County

  Kent

  Aylesford School

  380

  Grant maintained

  Cranbrook School

  438

  Grant maintained

  Dartford Grammar School

  260

  Grant maintained

  Homewood School

  176

  Grant maintained

  Northfleet School

  170

  County

  Sir William Nottidge School

  219

  County

  Southlands Comprehensive School

  223

  Grant maintained

  The Cornwallis School

  207

  Grant maintained

  Kingston on Thames

  Hollyfield School

  200

  County

  Tolworth Girls School

  200

  County

  Kirklees

  Almondbury High School

  250

  County

  Batley Boy's High School

  250

  County

  Howden Clough School

  155

  County

  Knowsley

  Brookfield Community School

  114

  County

  Lambeth

  La Retraite High School

  750

  Grant maintained

  Lancashire

  Archbishop Temple School

  251

  Grant maintained

  Baines School

  205

  Grant maintained

  Billinge High School

  235

  County

  Edge End High School

  163

  County

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  124

  Grant maintained

  Walton County High School

  163

  County

  Leeds

  Bruntcliffe Manor School

  205

  County

  Garaforth Community College

  175

  County

  Horsforth School

  200

  County

  Parklands High School

  250

  County

  Roundhay High School

  250

  County

  Liecestershire

  Burleigh College

  201

  County

  Vale of Catmose College

  230

  County

  Lewisham

  Sydenham School

  180

  County

  Lincolnshire

  Caister School

  287

  Grant maintained

  Lincoln School of Science and Technology

  250

  County

  St Georges School

  500

  Grant maintained

  Manchester

  South Manchester High School

  200

  County

  Newham

  Sarah Bonnell School

  273

  County

  Stratford School

  300

  Grant maintained

  Newcastle

  Benefield Comprehensive School

  225

  County

  291

  Local education authority and school

  TSI award £ thousands

  Status

  Norfolk

  Gosforth High School

  240

  County

  Earlham High School

  213

  County

  Oriel High School

  206

  County

  North Tyneside

  Wymondham College

  200

  Grant maintained

  Norham High School

  250

  County

  Willington High School

  170

  County

  North Yorkshire

  Huntingdon School

  232

  County

  Lady Lumley's School

  218

  County

  Rossett High School

  152

  County

  Northamptonshire

  Campion School

  224

  County

  Danetre School

  180

  County

  Kingswood School

  330

  Grant maintained

  Moulton School

  210

  County

  Northampton School for Boys

  250

  Grant maintained

  Rothwell Montsaye School

  199

  County

  Northumberland

  Coquet High School

  237

  County

  Cramlington Community School

  274

  County

  King Edward VI School

  200

  County

  Oldham

  Grange Secondary School

  180

  County

  The Radclyffe School

  250

  County

  Oxfordshire

  Peers School

  145

  County

  Redbridge

  Loxford High School

  193

  County

  Woodford High School

  184

  County

  Rochdale

  Heywood Community School

  200

  County

  Middleton High School

  250

  County

  Rotherham

  Dinnington School

  180

  County

  Salford

  Moorside High School

  150

  County

  Sandwell

  Warley High School

  210

  County

  Woodenborough High School

  185

  County

  Sefton

  Chesterfield High School

  200

  County

  Maghull High School

  85

  County

  Sheffield

  Handsworth Grange School

  200

  County

  High Storrs School

  210

  County

  Shropshire

  Adam's Grammer School

  470

  Grant maintained

  Lacon Childe School

  250

  County

  Rhyne Park School

  140

  County

  Somerset

  Sir John Talbots School

  198

  County

  Court Fields Community School

  250

  County

  The Wells Blue School

  284

  County

  St. Helens

  Cheslyn Hay High School

  150

  County

  Haydock High School

  165

  County

  Penkford School and Special Needs Centre

  171

  County

  292

  Local education authority and school

  TSI award £ thousands

  Status

  Stockport

  Kingsway School

  299

  County

  Reddish Vale School

  235

  County

  Suffolk

  Great Comard School

  215

  County

  Samuel Ward County School

  200

  County

  Thurleston High School

  250

  County

  Thurston Upper School

  250

  County

  Sunderland

  St. Robert of Newminster School

  205

  Voluntary assisted

  Surrey

  Bishop Reindorp School

  170

  Voluntary assisted

  Heath End School

  160

  County

  The Beacon School

  185

  Grant maintained

  The Glyn School

  350

  Grant maintained

  Therfield School

  238

  County

  Sutton

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  700

  Grant maintained

  Tameside

  Hyde Community High School

  205

  County

  West Hill Boys School

  250

  County

  Trafford

  Sale Moor High School

  220

  Grant maintained

  Wakefield

  Outwood Grange High School

  188

  County

  Walsall

  Brownhills School

  250

  County

  Waltham Forest

  McEntee School

  165

  County

  Walthamstow Girls School

  210

  County

  Wandsworth

  Battersea Technology College

  250

  County

  Burntwood School

  553

  Grant maintained

  Graveney School

  300

  Grant maintained

  Warwickshire

  Ashlawn School

  200

  County

  Wigan

  Golbourne School

  144

  County

  Shevington High School

  170

  County

  Wiltshire

  The George Ward School

  103

  County

  Wirral

  Meadowside School

  160

  County

  Wolverhampton

  Mosley Park School

  730

  Grant maintained

  Parkfield School

  224

  County

  St. Peter's Collegiate School

  188

  Voluntary assisted

  Wednesfield School

  196

  County

  Wolverhampton Girls High School

  450

  Grant maintained

  School Inspections
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what criteria Her Majesty's inspectorate are using in its inspections of(a) individual primary schools and (b) individual secondary schools;

  (2) what measures Her Majesty's inspectorate are taking to ensure that its criteria for inspecting schools are

  293
  available to (a) parents, (b) staff, (c) parents of potential pupils and other interested members of the local community and (d) governors;

  (3) how the criteria for inspecting schools differ from those used by Her Majesty's inspectorate before the new arrangements were introduced following the Education (Schools) Act 1992.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The arrangements for inspecting schools under the Education (Schools) Act 1992 are a matter for Ofsted—The Office of Standards in Education.

  I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Patrick Doyle
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish a list of all meetings held and correspondence exchanged in the past 10 years between his Department and Mr. Patrick Doyle, now of AST Training;

  Maintained secondary schools in each Local Education Authority in England

  LEA

  19921

  19932

  County2

  Voluntary aided2

  Self-Governing

  Self-Governing

  Schools

  Pupils

  Schools

  Pupils

  Schools

  Pupils

  Schools only

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  5

  4,860

  6

  5,381

  0

  0

  2

  Greenwich

  10

  10,363

  4

  2,555

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  6

  4,719

  4

  3,069

  0

  0

  0

  Hammersmith

  4

  2,341

  4

  2,463

  1

  1,197

  1

  Islington

  6

  5,468

  3

  2,264

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  1,506

  2

  1,201

  1

  622

  1

  Lambeth

  5

  3,244

  3

  1,755

  1

  605

  5

  Lewisham

  8

  7,572

  4

  2,171

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  8

  5,017

  6

  3,659

  1

  389

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  8

  5,877

  3

  2,479

  1

  879

  1

  Wandsworth

  6

  5,042

  3

  1,837

  2

  2,709

  6

  Westminster

  3

  3,855

  4

  2,945

  0

  0

  0

  Barking

  7

  8,125

  1

  1,039

  0

  0

  0

  Barnet

  11

  9,724

  8

  6,774

  2

  1,954

  7

  Bexley

  14

  12,193

  3

  2,157

  0

  0

  4

  Brent

  10

  8,129

  1

  790

  1

  976

  8

  Bromley

  9

  8,471

  2

  1,511

  6

  6,039

  11

  Croydon

  14

  10,132

  7

  4,589

  1

  958

  4

  Baling

  11

  8,874

  2

  2,228

  0

  0

  5

  Enfield

  11

  11,379

  5

  4,297

  0

  0

  4

  Haringey

  7

  6,787

  2

  1,992

  0

  0

  0

  Harrow

  8

  6,658

  3

  1,468

  0

  0

  1

  Havering

  14

  11,322

  5

  4,601

  0

  0

  4

  Hillingdon

  8

  4,896

  2

  2,100

  7

  6,398

  11

  Hounslow

  9

  8,709

  3

  2,824

  0

  0

  2

  Kingston upon Thames

  7

  5,209

  1

  597

  0

  0

  4

  Merton

  7

  3,777

  3

  2,116

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  11

  11,169

  2

  1,878

  1

  574

  1

  Redbridge

  12

  11,903

  1

  1,309

  0

  0

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  7

  6,538

  1

  633

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  10

  7,341

  1

  879

  3

  2,407

  8

  Waltham Forest

  16

  10,292

  1

  903

  1

  1,058

  2

  Birmingham

  59

  46,202

  15

  10,331

  4

  4,827

  13

  Coventry

  15

  14,282

  3

  2,962

  0

  0

  0

  Dudley

  .19

  15,156

  2

  1,712

  I

  564

  6

  Sandwell

  22

  16,622

  1

  681

  1

  652

  1

  Solihull

  13

  12,108

  2

  2,098

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  17

  14,563

  5

  4,133

  0

  0

  6

  Wolverhampton

  15

  11,527

  3

  2,296

  2

  1,777

  2

  Knowsley

  7

  5,865

  4

  3,041

  0

  0

  1

  Liverpool

  17

  14,480

  18

  13,454

  1

  1,043

  2

  St. Helens

  8

  8,401

  4

  3,269

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  16

  12,465

  5

  4,365

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  20

  18,238

  3

  2,831

  0

  0

  2

  Bolton

  12

  10,823

  4

  4,219

  1

  717

  3

  Bury

  11

  7,283

  4

  3,076

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  19

  14,979

  11

  8,645

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  11

  11,908

  4

  3,926

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  11

  9,768

  3

  2,771

  0

  0

  1

  294
  what was the nature of such meetings or correspondence; what plans he has to meet Mr. Patrick Doyle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  There have been no recent meetings or correspondence between Mr. Patrick Doyle and this Department.

  Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the number of(a) county, (b) voluntary-aided and (c) grant-maintained secondary schools for each local education authority; and, in each case, what is the total number of pupils in each category.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on county, voluntary aided and self-governing secondary schools and pupils in January 1992, the latest date for which comparable information is available, is shown in the table. For completeness, the table also shows the number of schools currently operating as self-governing.
  295

  LEA

  19921

  19932

  County2

  Voluntary aided2

  Self-Governing

  Self-Governing

  Schools

  Pupils

  Schools

  Pupils

  Schools

  Pupils

  Schools only

  Salford

  14

  9,883

  6

  2,595

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  14

  15,529

  3

  1,845

  0

  0

  0

  Tameside

  16

  11,561

  3

  1,748

  1

  794

  3

  Trafford

  14

  10,044

  1

  415

  0

  0

  4

  Wigan

  14

  11,335

  6

  6,268

  0

  0

  0

  Bamsley

  13

  10,742

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Doncaster

  32

  19,080

  2

  1,590

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  15

  16,144

  1

  545

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  30

  22,069

  2

  1,802

  0

  0

  2

  Bradford

  76

  38,465

  8

  4,190

  1

  938

  6

  Calderdale

  12

  8,953

  2

  1,554

  2

  1,339

  4

  Kirklees

  31

  21,709

  1

  996

  2

  1,192

  2

  Leeds

  79

  41,715

  16

  7,585

  0

  0

  1

  Wakefield

  32

  16,939

  3

  1,758

  0

  0

  0

  Gates head

  11

  9,731

  2

  1,827

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  19

  13,569

  3

  2,929

  0

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  27

  14,065

  1

  901

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  9

  7,383

  2

  1,669

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  14

  15,159

  3

  3,409

  0

  0

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  112

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  50

  45,478

  5

  3,527

  2

  1,455

  2

  Bedfordshire

  61

  37,996

  6

  3,741

  1

  774

  10

  Berkshire

  43

  34,939

  6

  2,875

  6

  5,251

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  35

  25,963

  2

  1,123

  3

  3,069

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  39

  34,681

  3

  1,879

  0

  0

  16

  Cheshire

  58

  52,636

  10

  7,465

  1

  528

  3

  Cleveland

  40

  31,245

  11

  7,350

  0

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  32

  28,925

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  32

  21,833

  4

  2,997

  2

  1,417

  11

  Derbyshire

  49

  44,717

  5

  3,589

  2

  1,921

  13

  Devon

  61

  51,913

  5

  3,273

  1

  499

  5

  Dorset

  39

  25,470

  6

  3,973

  3

  2,627

  9

  Durham

  40

  32,644

  5

  4,377

  0

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  34

  30,576

  -3

  2,801

  0

  0

  0

  Essex

  91

  83,656

  9

  6,553

  3

  3,445

  53

  Gloucestershire

  33

  24,788

  2

  1,781

  4

  2,821

  22

  Hampshire

  91

  73,137

  6

  4,575

  4

  2,986

  IS

  Hereford and Worcester

  58

  35,527

  7

  5,185

  0

  0

  5

  Hertfordshire

  68

  49,230

  12

  9,707

  5

  4,486

  18

  Humberside

  55

  51,368

  5

  2,892

  0

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  17

  8,769

  2

  752

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  97

  67,676

  13

  10,162

  16

  12,877

  54

  Lancashire

  69

  52,632

  22

  16,508

  4

  3,183

  7

  Leicestershire

  73

  50,626

  4

  3,307

  1

  364

  5

  Lincolnshire

  41

  22,826

  3

  1,328

  10

  6,719

  22

  Norfolk

  47

  34,718

  2

  1,528

  1

  878

  12

  North Yorkshire

  49

  35,476

  8

  5,155

  0

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  52

  35,875

  7

  4,005

  5

  2,990

  12

  Northumberland

  52

  25,167

  4

  1,397

  0

  0

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  73

  53,513

  10

  7,302

  0

  0

  3

  Oxfordshire

  37

  28,274

  3

  1,661

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  32

  21,364

  2

  1,200

  1

  481

  5

  Somerset

  31

  21,773

  1

  623

  1

  391

  1

  Staffordshire

  71

  58,730

  9

  6,264

  0

  0

  5

  Suffolk

  68

  42,833

  4

  1,763

  0

  0

  0

  Surrey

  43

  31,804

  7

  5,295

  5

  4,137

  12

  Warwickshire

  27

  18,799

  6

  3,357

  3

  1,303

  8

  West Sussex

  31

  31,192

  9

  5,530

  0

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  32

  24,945

  2

  1,210

  1

  540

  8

  England

  2,989

  2,274,063

  486

  351,910

  130

  105,750

  511

  1 Information collected in January 1992 Schools' Census

  2 Includes some secondary schools operating as self-governing in October 1993

  Parental Ballots
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parental ballots on grant-maintained status were held in(a) September 1992 and (b) September 1993; and, in each case, how many resulted in a majority of parents voting (i) yes and (ii) no.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is given in the table:296

  "Yes" votes

  "No" votes

  Total ballots

  September 1992

  15

  1

  16

  September 1993

  3

  6

  9

  Note: Overall, of the 1,280 ballots so far held on grant-maintained status, 77 per cent. have resulted in a yes vote.

  Overseas Staff and Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost for the current financial year of his Department having(a) premises and (b) personnel overseas; and what were the comparable figures for (a) 12, (b) 24, (c) 36 and (d) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Boswell
  No cost accrues to this Department. It has no overseas premises and no staff working abroad.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Council
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 28 September.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 28 September. My noble Friend Lord Caithness and I represented the United Kingdom.Political agreement was reached on the text of the directive on road haulage taxation and charging, and the regulation on road haulage cabotage to give effect to the conclusions reached at the Council in June.
  The Council reached agreement on the regulation amending the regulation on a code of conduct for computer reservation systems; formal adoption will follow shortly. The regulation deals with a range of practical and competition issues which have become apparent since the original regulation was adopted. In particular it aims to remove the scope for anti-competitive behaviour which might result if an airline were allowed to run a commercially available CRS system in close conjunction with its own in-house computer.
  The Council discussed the Commission's communication on road safety. We stressed the considerable success the United Kingdom had achieved by action at local and national level and argued that Community action should be directed at improving vehicle safety standards rather than at harmonisation of speed and blood alcohol limits which took no account of differing road conditions and national attitudes.
  The Council agreed to a general discussion of relations with Switzerland at the October General Affairs Council prior to consideration of negotiating mandates on air and road transport at the Transport Council in November.
  In view of the significant restructuring taking place in some member states the Council agreed that a debate on community rail policy should be held at the Transport Council in November. We explained that the reforms in the United Kingdom would separate rail infrastructure from services, and encourage the involvement of the private sector. We stressed the importance of implementation of the 1991 access directive by all member states, which the United Kingdom has implemented, and asked the Commission to examine the directive to consider how it would fit with the new industry structures.
  The Council reached political agreement on slight modifications to the guidelines for Community trans-European networks for combined transport, roads and inland waterways agreed at the Council in June. Formal adoption awaits the opinion of the European Parliament.

  There were no votes taken.

  British Rail Telecommunications Ltd.
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in privatising British Rail Telecommunications Ltd.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government and British Rail intend to privatise British Rail Telecommunications Ltd. by the end of 1994. They wish to involve the private sector 298
  to the maximum extent possible in the management, maintenance and exploitation of the British Rail telecommunications network. The network provides two types of service to BR at present: operational—especially communications relating to signalling—and business services. There is also some spare capacity on the network which could be exploited for external telecommunications customers.

  BRT is to be restructured by April 1994 with new management. BR will be devising appropriate commercial arrangements to be put in place between BRT and the railway before these activities are privatised. These matters and others will be detailed in an information memorandum which is expected to be issued during the first half of next year. Railtrack will have a major role to play because of its responsibility for safety and as a customer.

  The Government and BR believe that there are excellent opportunities for private sector involvement in rail telecommunications while safeguarding operational requirements. BR will consult the private sector about the details of the privatisation of BRT.

  Transport Ministers' Meeting
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the outcome of the informal meeting of EC Transport Ministers on 27 September.

  Mr. MacGregor
  EC Transport Ministers met on the day before the September Transport Council at the request of the presidency to hear presentations from the European airline associations. In the ministerial discussion which followed, I stressed that the success of British airlines was founded on commercial, private sector management and emphasis on the customer. I emphasised that there should be no going back on the liberalising third aviation package and that Governments and the Community should limit themselves to areas where only they could take action, that the Community should tackle over-regulation and that urgent action should be taken on state aids and ground-handling monopolies. This was supported by much of the evidence given by the associations.

  Given the informal nature of the meeting, no decisions were taken, but a useful discussion took place.

  Biodiesel Trials
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been learnt from the emissions tests carried out on one of the buses used in the Reading Buses biodiesel fuel trial.

  Mr. Freeman
  The conclusions of tests carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory are that changes in most emission rates are small and not clearly attributable to the type of fuel. The exceptions are visible smoke which was significantly lower with biodiesel, and particulate which, contrary to the reported results of others, was substantially higher. A copy of the TRL report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Motorway Service Areas (Disabled Persons)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys his Department has conducted of the provision of(a) night-time services and (b) 24-hour facilities for the disabled at motorway service areas; and if he will make a statement.
  299
  Mr. Key
  The Department requires the operators of all motorway service areas in England to provide a range of facilities, including free short-term parking, toilets, fuel and food and drink, 24 hours a day every day of the year. These facilities must be available to all motorway users including the disabled.

  The Department does not use surveys to ensure compliance with its requirements, but pursues any complaints received with the operators concerned. If the hon. Member has a particular difficulty in mind, perhaps he would write to me.

  European Regional Development Funds
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of European regional development funds which have been allocated for transport initiatives in the last 12 months and which are proposed for the next 12 months.

  Mr. MacGregor
  European regional development fund resources are allocated to multi-annual regional programmes, and are administered locally by regional committees which decide priorities and assess potential schemes. For 1993–94 my Department estimate that transport schemes will attract £33 million in support from the ERDF. Plans for 1994 to 1996 have not yet been finalised.

  Hazardous Goods
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the new labelling system for hazardous goods in transit published by the Health and Safety Commission.

  Mr. Key
  The Health and Safety Commission published in June a consultative document, CD63, on proposals for new regulations on the classification, packaging and labelling of goods for carriage by road and rail in preparation for the opening up of rail freight services to private sector operators and in order to harmonise the rules for the carriage of dangerous goods by rail and road in line with the United Nations recommendations. A copy of the consultative document is in the Library. The Health and Safety Executive is now considering responses to it and I expect to receive the Commission's recommendations and draft regulations at the end of the year.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the local bus companies that operate services in south Yorkshire that replied to his consultation document in respect of how the 1985 deregulation of service arrangements are working; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The only bus company based in South Yorkshire that responded was South Riding. In total some 160 replies were received. I am considering these and expect to announce the results shortly.

  London Underground
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to make a statement in respect of his quasi-judicial role in London Underground Ltd.'s intention to seek closure of the Central line service between Epping and Ongar; and how far negotiations have proceeded to date.
  300
  Mr. Freeman
  Following receipt of objections to London Underground Ltd.'s proposed closure of the Epping to Ongar service, the London Regional Passengers Committee is to hold a public hearing at Ongar on Monday 8 November, in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Transport Act 1962. The committee will then report to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will make his decision on the closure proposal once he has considered this report and any other material factors.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish dates of all meetings with outside persons or bodies and titles of all non-departmental briefing papers or any associated material concerning the possible amendment of sections 1(1), 1(2) or 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; what plans he has to amend sections 1(1), 1(2) or 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in respect of matters relating to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The seven deregulation task forces, established earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, have all considered health and safety matters to varying degrees in sector specific or cross sectoral ways. Details of all task force meetings, consultations or papers could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table listing(a) all regulations suggested by his Department to the Health and Safety Commission or by the Health and Safety Commission to his Department as candidates for revocation as part of the deregulation initiative, (b) the purpose and function of each of these regulations, (c) whether it is suggested that the regulations be (i) amended, (ii) abolished, (iii) replaced with self-regulation or (iv) replaced with other regulation; whether, for each regulation, revocation without replacement or with self-regulation would require amendment of section 1(1), 1(2) or 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Possible sector-specific and cross-sectoral candidates for administrative simplification and reform by the Health and Safety Commission are currently being considered by the seven deregulation task forces, established earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The task forces have not yet completed their work, but their proposals will be submitted to the Government in due course for consideration.

  Further possible proposals for reform by the HSC may be identified by the HSC's own task groups which have been asked to complete their work by April next year.

  Overseas Staff and Premises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost for the current financial year of his Department having(a) premises and (b) personnel overseas; and what were the comparable figures for (a) 12, (b) 24, (c) 36 and (d) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Eggar
  The costs to this Department of its personnel temporarily based overseas in 1993–94 are
  301
  estimated to be in the region of £1.3 million, on the basis of expenditure in the first half of the current financial year. This Department does not have to meet the costs of any overseas premises.

  Precise figures for earlier years are not readily available, but are likely to have been broadly similar to the current year in real terms.

  EC Public Utilities
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to ensure that public utilities in other EC countries actively encourage suppliers from the United Kingdom to participate in their contracts.

  Mr. Needham
  Under the Utilities Directive 90/531/ EEC contracting bodies are, in most cases, obliged to publish calls for competition in the Official Journal of the European Communities, through periodic notices of planned procurement, notices of qualification systems or specific contract notices. These notices can also be accessed on the tenders electronic daily database. Since I January 1993 contract notices have been published in the Official Journal by utilities in all the major member states and even some by utilities in Greece, Portugal and Spain who do not yet have to implement the directives.

  My Department actively supports United Kingdom suppliers in EC markets and I have appointed an export promoter on loan from industry to focus specifically in this area. My Department is also mounting a campaign to bring public procurement opportunities in the Community to the attention of United Kingdom industry, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Finally, I have just initiated a review to identify problems faced by United Kingdom businesses trying to sell to public purchasers in other EC member states, including those included within the scope of directive 90/531/EEC. My Department will ensure that everything possible is done to solve specific problems and will provide feedback to the EC Commission as necessary. This review is expected to be completed early next year and the results will be used in my Department's work supporting British exporters.

  European Community Public Procurement Directive
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to encourage the EC to ensure that European Community public procurement directive (90/531/EEC) is equally implemented by all relevant member states; and with what results.

  Mr. Needham
  The European Commission continues to put pressure on all member states to eliminate any delays in implementing single market measures, including public procurement directive 90/531/EEC. It regularly produces a table showing the state of transposition of such measures by EC member states which it presents to ministers at meetings of the Internal Market Council. It also holds meetings as appropriate on a bilateral basis with the authorities of member states to discuss specific difficulties on transposition. In addition, the Commission has three advisory committees to discuss its proposals for monitoring the application and effectiveness of the public procurement directives.

  Directive 90/531/EEC, which is designed to open up supplies and works contracts for utilities in the water, energy, transport, and telecommunications sectors to
  302
  Community-wide competition, is required to have entered into force on 1 January 1993 with derogations for Spain —1 January 1996—and for Greece and Portugal—1 January 1998. The Commission's latest report indicates that six member states, including the United Kingdom, have so far implemented the directive, Belgium has drafted the necessary domestic legislation and Germany and Italy have yet to notify any implementation measures. The Government will continue to take a close interest in progress towards proper implementation by all member states.

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial target and capital expenditure limit have been set for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for 1993–94.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's financial target for 1993–94 has been set as a 12.1 per cent. return on average capital employed, calculated according to the current cost convention. The target is based on the profit earned on ordinary activities before long-term interest is payable. I have also approved the AEA's capital expenditure programme for the year at £18.9 million.

  Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what agreements have been laid before Parliament under the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The agreement with Pool Reinsurance Company Ltd. was concluded, with the consent of the Treasury, on 30 July and was laid before Parliament on 30 July. Updated versions of schedules 5, 6 and 7 to the agreement—the forms of the legal contracts between Pool Reinsurance Company and its members—were laid before Parliament today. The changes are not substantive but serve to simplify the administrative arrangements between Pool Reinsurance Company Ltd. and its members.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also undertaking, with the consent of the Treasury, to guarantee a credit facility which has been obtained by Pool Reinsurance Company Ltd. from a group of banks to ensure the financing of the arrangements. The guarantee together with a copy of the credit facility was also laid before Parliament on 30 July.

  Following the conclusion of the agreement, Pool Reinsurance Company Ltd. was authorised on 30 July to carry on reinsurance business in accordance with the Insurance Companies Act 1982.

  The authorisation of the company, the conclusion of the agreement and the granting of the guarantee, together with the credit facility, mark the completion of the establishment of the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend on 21 December. The arrangements established enable the Secretary of State to act as reinsurer of last resort are effective from 1 January 1993. Industry and commerce in Great Britain can now be confident that firm arrangements exist to provide for insurance against terrorist damage, provided they take out such insurance.

  Nuclear Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to support the export activities of the United Kingdom nuclear industry since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  In association with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Embassies overseas, my Department provides general support for the export activities of the nuclear industry, subject to necessary regulation in the areas of non-proliferation, safety and environmental protection. Where specifically requested, umbrella co-operation agreements have been negotiated between Governments. In addition, the industry can make use of the comprehensive package of assistance offered to all exporters by my Department.

  EC Law
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many responses he received to his consultation document reviewing the implementation and enforcement of EC law in the United Kingdom; how many copies of the document were printed; how many were(a) sold and (b) otherwise distributed; and if he will place in the Library copies of the responses.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To date, over 70 submissions have been received in response to the call for comments on the review of the implementation and enforcement of EC law in the United Kingdom. A total of 1,500 copies of the review were printed. Approximately 500 copies have been sold to date. A further 440 complimentary copies were distributed to those individuals, businesses, trade associations and representative organisations which assisted in the review and to the press, parliamentarians and others.

  I am not at liberty to place copies of the responses in the Library of the House. Publications of respondents' comments is a matter for them. However, in line with recommendation 9 of the review and subject to the confidentiality which respondents have a right to expect, a summary of responses is being prepared for distribution to all those who contributed to the consultation exercise. I will place a copy of this, together with a list of respondents, in the Library of the House as soon as all the responses have been analysed.

  Defence Industry Diversification
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the criteria used by Her Majesty's Government in compiling the United Kingdom bid to the EC KONVER fund on defence industry diversification; which regional organisations were consulted in preparation of the KONVER bid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United Kingdom's proposal for a KONVER programme is based on the European Commission's letter of 28 May to the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the European Communities which is available in the House of Commons Library. The United Kingdom programme proposes eight selection criteria to be used to select projects for grant assistance. Projects to be given priority are those which:

  (i) accelerate diversification, where possible, so as to render such areas less dependent on this sector;

  304

  (ii) encourage the development of commercially viable businesses in any sector;

  (iii) demonstrate good value for money and include quantifiable and measureable targets to be monitored;

  (iv) involve an integrated approach to regeneration which will benefit the whole of the area which is the subject of the application;

  (v) involve a high degree of leverage, of finance from other public and private sector sources;

  (vi) are innovatory;

  (vii) complement existing schemes and services provided under relevant CSFs, Community initiatives and national measures.

  In compiling the programme the following bodies were consulted:

  Training and Enterprise Councils

  Local Enterprise Companies

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Association of County Councils

  Association of District Councils

  Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Council of Welsh Districts

  Assembly of Welsh Counties

  Scottish Enterprise

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board

  Local Government International Bureau

  National Council for Voluntary Organisation (England and Wales)

  Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

  National Council for Industry Training Organisations

  London Boroughs Association

  Association of London Authorities

  Rural Development Commission

  Industrial Common Ownership Movement.

  Mining Industry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for the past five years in both British Coal and United Kingdom private licensed mines(a) the fatality rate per 100,000 manshifts and (b) the total number of fatalities.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 October 1993]: The information requested, which has been provided by the Health and Safety Executive, is as follows:

  British coal mines1

  Private licensed mines

  Year

  Fatality per 100,000 manshifts

  Total fatalities

  Fatality per 100,000 manshifts

  Total fatalities

  21992–93

  0·03

  3

  n/a

  3

  1991–92

  30·07

  10

  n/a

  2

  1990–91

  0·07

  11

  n/a

  1

  1989–90

  0·10

  18

  n/a

  1

  1988–89

  0·08

  18

  n/a

  2

  1 Covers injuries to British Coal Corporation employees and contractors.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Revised August 1993 to take account of contractors shifts worked. n/a=Not available.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what comparison his Department has made of the safety record of British Coal's deep mine operations with those in the United States of America and elsewhere.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 October 1993]: Meaningful comparisons are generally not possible because of the different mining conditions and the different bases on which such information is recorded in each country.
  305
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the amount of deep-mined coal produced in the United Kingdom, from 1982 to 1992, distinguishing between categories used for household, coking, industrial boilers, and electricity power generation, which were produced, using domestically

  Thousand tones

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Deep-mined

  106,161

  101,742

  35,243

  75,289

  90,366

  85,957

  83,762

  79,628

  72,899

  73,357

  65,800

  Opencast

  15,266

  14,706

  14,306

  15,569

  14,275

  15,786

  17,899

  19,442

  18,880

  19,356

  18,435

  Other1

  3,284

  2,806

  1,633

  3,253

  3,458

  2,790

  2,405

  1,535

  1,729

  2,208

  639

  Total production

  124,711

  119,254

  51,182

  94,111

  108,099

  104,533

  104,066

  100,605

  93,508

  94,921

  84,874

  Exports

  7,447

  6,561

  2,293

  2,432

  2,677

  2,353

  1,822

  2,049

  2,533

  1,672

  668

  Stock changes2

  +10,124

  +5,583

  -21,412

  -1,569

  +3,502

  -5,235

  +2,920

  +3,078

  -1,484

  +5,561

  +3,886

  Statistical difference3

  +205

  +91

  +1,886

  +594

  -1,760

  +1,302

  -489

  +34

  -1,014

  -214

  +50

  Consumption of UK coal

  106,935

  107,019

  68,415

  92,654

  103,680

  106,113

  99,813

  95,444

  93,473

  87,902

  80,270

  Of which: Domestic

  7,860

  7,199

  3,742

  6,299

  6,257

  5,679

  4,561

  3,504

  3,869

  3,323

  2,187

  Coke ovens

  7,827

  8,092

  2,774

  4,069

  4,865

  4,967

  4,612

  3,594

  2,238

  871

  646

  Industry

  7,152

  7,227

  6,944

  8,244

  7,575

  5,414

  5,184

  5,091

  4,983

  4,344

  3,356

  Electricity generators

  79,422

  80,225

  53,359

  71,284

  81,465

  86,602

  82,285

  80,623

  80,059

  77,090

  72,422

  Other

  4,674

  4,275

  1,596

  2,758

  3,518

  3,451

  3,171

  2,632

  2,324

  2,274

  1,659

  Imports4

  4,063

  4,456

  8,894

  12,732

  10,554

  9,781

  11,685

  12,137

  14,783

  19,611

  20,373

  Of which: Domestic

  553

  605

  1,667

  1,516

  1,164

  855

  1,180

  1,544

  370

  1,455

  1,991

  Coke ovens

  2,579

  2,356

  5,472

  7,053

  6,257

  5,892

  6,290

  7,198

  8,614

  9,140

  8,385

  Industry

  32

  33

  62

  67

  1,703

  1,410

  1,945

  1,139

  767

  1,607

  2,727

  Electricity generators

  806

  1,340

  52

  2,656

  1,187

  1,358

  1,973

  1,963

  4,488

  6,927

  6,586

  Other

  93

  122

  1,641

  1,440

  243

  266

  297

  293

  544

  482

  684

  £ per tonne

  Average cost of imported coal5

  78·61

  80·26

  85·42

  80·47

  61·01

  52·20

  46·47

  46·96

  46·77

  38·43

  35·57

  1 Estimates of slurry etc. recovered and disposed of other than by British Coal from dumps, ponds, rivers, etc.

  2 Stock fall (-), stock rise(+).

  3 Supply greater than (+) or less than (-) recorded demand.

  4 Though data is available on total imports and on consumption by fuel producers, there is only very limited direct information on consumption of imported coal by final users. The allocation of imports to individual sectors has therefore been estimated.

  5 Cash figures adjusted to 1993 price levels by excluding the effect of general inflation as measured by the GDP deflator.

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1993.

  My officials are seeing whether further information, which separately identifies the use of deep-mined coal and opencast coal, is available. If it is, I will write to the hon. Member when the details have been extracted.

HEALTH

  Unemployment
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged(a) 16 or 17 years and (b) 18 to 24 years living in (i) York parliamentary constituency, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) Great Britain were unemployed according to the 1991 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.
  306
  exported and imported coal, respectively, together with the comparable production and use of opencast-produced coal; and what was the cost of imported coal at 1993 prices for each year shown in the table.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 October 1993]: The information readily available is as follows:

  Number of residents recorded in 1991 Census as unemployed

  Area

  Age

  16

  17

  18–24

  York Parliamentary Constituency

  83

  87

  1,082

  North Yorkshire

  343

  471

  4,904

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4,234

  5,413

  62,424

  Great Britain

  43,255

  61,494

  657,848

  Source: 1991 Census for Great Britain (part 1), Table 8; and County Report for North Yorkshire (Part 1), Table 8.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of ambulances in each service in England responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) the first half of 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for 1992–93 is shown in the table. This information is collected annually and, therefore, no figures are available for the first half of 1993–94.
  307

  Patient transport services Emergency calls: Response times 1992–93

  England

  Ambulance authority

  Total number of emergency calls resulting in ambulance arriving at scene of incidents (thousands)

  Response within 8 minutes (per cent.)

  Response within 19 minutes (rural) 14 minutes (urban) (per cent.)

  Rural authorities

  Cumbria

  15·3

  55·6

  91·2

  Durham

  30·3

  51·6

  97·1

  Humberside

  43·0

  72·8

  99·2

  Northumbria (NHS Trust)

  77·6

  67·8

  99·0

  North Yorkshire

  23·1

  58·8

  95·4

  Derbyshire

  35·2

  46·6

  95·7

  Leicestershire

  32·6

  54·4

  97·f0

  Lincolnshire (NHS Trust)

  17·8

  62·2

  95·3

  Nottinghamshire

  54·7

  57·9

  97·7

  Cambridgeshire

  19·1

  40·9

  94·2

  Norfolk (NHS Trust)

  27·5

  57·5

  96·7

  Suffolk

  11·9

  53·2

  92·1

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  59·6

  54·3

  96·9

  Essex (NHS Trust)

  66·1

  57·8

  98·6

  East Sussex

  36·9

  67·7

  97·7

  Kent

  57·8

  55·2

  96·4

  West Sussex

  26·8

  65·6

  97·3

  Dorset

  27·8

  54·6

  96·1

  Hampshire

  46·7

  55·9

  97·4

  Wiltshire

  15·1

  60·7

  95·9

  Isle of Wight

  4·3

  59·5

  97·9

  Berkshire

  28·4

  58·9

  99·0

  Buckinghamshire

  22·1

  62·0

  97·0

  Northamptonshire

  17·8

  68·0

  98·2

  Oxfordshire

  16·1

  51·8

  94·2

  Cornwall (NHS Trust)

  16·5

  41·2

  90·0

  Devon (NHS Trust)

  38·4

  60·2

  98·5

  Gloucestershire (NHS Trust)

  13·5

  57·8

  96·8

  Somerset

  11·8

  58·9

  94·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  21·3

  61·9

  97·1

  Shropshire

  12·7

  51·1

  96·0

  Staffordshire (NHS Trust)

  39·6

  53·4

  95·3

  Warwickshire

  14·4

  49·4

  95·3

  Lancashire

  69·8

  65·9

  98·7

  Urban authorities

  Cleveland (NHS Trust)

  24·2

  73·0

  97·0

  West Yorkshire

  108·2

  55·0

  94·0

  South Yorkshire (NHS Trust)

  56·4

  46·6

  89·9

  Surrey

  44·0

  55·1

  94·8

  London Ambulance Service

  474·5

  11·3

  58·5

  Avon (NHS Trust)

  37·0

  55·5

  90·0

  West Midlands

  140·7

  45·2

  91·1

  Mersey (NHS Trust)

  147·7

  68·1

  95·4

  Greater Manchester

  165·4

  60·5

  97·4

  Clothier Inquiry
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish the findings of the Clothier inquiry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The independent inquiry into incidents at Grantham and Kesteven general hospital by Sir Cecil Clothier and his team is likely to report its findings in January 1994. The report will be published in full.

  Operations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate available to her of the annual number of operations in(a) NHS hospitals and (b) private hospitals in England for (i) hip replacement, (ii) cataract and (iii) varicose veins.

  Mr. Sackville
  We do not collect information on activity in private hospitals. For national health service hospitals the latest available information through the hospital episode statistics is shown in the table.
  309

  Estimated number of finished consultant episodes in national health service hospitals, England, 1989–90

  Operation

  Number of completed episodes

  Operations for removal of cataract

  92,184

  Operation on varicose vein of leg

  63,320

  Hip operations

  50,790

  National Health Service Chief EN0
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to appoint a successor to Sir Duncan Nichol as NHS chief executive.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Early in 1994.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will withdraw the letter on deregulation, residential care homes, private nursing homes and hospitals issued by her Department on 3 August; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  No. While I have no intention of withdrawing or weakening any regulation which protects people in residential and nursing homes, it is entirely proper to consult home owners and managers as to the appropriateness and complexity of regulations affecting such homes.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants were engaged in her visit to Thailand, Malaysia, Australia and Hong Kong from 7 to 17 September; and what was the cost of the visit.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Four. The trade mission was not supported financially by any Government Department. The cost to the Department of Health was £31,000, comprising travelling and subsistence expenses for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and accompanying officials. The companies involved paid their own expenses and also met the cost of local transport, receptions and seminars for the whole party.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the benefits accrued to the NHS, and the value of them, during her visit to Thailand, Malaysia, Australia and Hong Kong; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend's trade mission to Australia and the far east was organised by the Association of British Healthcare Industries in order to develop existing trade relationships and seek out new opportunities for partnerships, exports and local investment.

  The visit did much to expand the export drive of the British health care industry, which, like that of our other industries, is vital to sustain the economic foundations on which our health and social care system is based.

  The United Kingdom national health service is a much-admired model of health care and an international benchmark for comparison. Through National Health
  310
  Service Overseas Enterprises, the official marketing arm of the NHS in England, many of the skills and services which are available in the United Kingdom health service can be marketed overseas. Profits from these activities come back to the NHS.

  As a result of the mission both the NHSOE and the representatives of the British health care industry were able to strengthen their position in each of the countries visited through new and important trade and manufacturing links, including some specific business opportunities.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been issued by her Department to NHS trusts regarding the need for those appointed as chief executive to have experience of working in the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by wave, the end of year financial position of each self-governing trust for 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is contained in the 1992–93 annual accounts of national health service trusts. We are assembling and summarising these accounts in accordance with statutory deadlines. Comprehensive information will be available at the end of November 1993.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish her review of the structure arid management of the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement to the House today. Copies of "Managing the new NHS", a background document which provides further information in support of the decisions she will be announcing, are available in the Library.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list, by local authority, the average time it takes to find nursing home places for elderly people transferring from hospitals;

  (2) if she will list for each London borough the number of specialist nursing home places for each year from 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Health Services, Ealing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions she has had with the London borough of Ealing and Ealing NHS hospital trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have had no direct discussions but a number have taken place locally with officials from the North West Thames regional health authority.

  Jarman Index
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to update the Jarman index.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is not a matter for which Ministers have responsibility.

  Northumbria Ambulance Service Trust
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with officials of the Northumbria Ambulance Service NHS trust on the subject of accounting procedures.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials have reminded the Northumbria Ambulance Service NHS trust of the statutory accounting procedures for NHS trusts. These procedures are contained in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and in the NHS "Trusts Manual For Accounts", copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Nurses (Clothing and Equipment)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what items of work clothing and equipment are issued as standard to every NHS hospital nurse; and what is the cost to the NHS of one of each item.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no standard clothing issued by all hospitals. It is a local purchasing decision for the hospital concerned and the price is dependent on size, quality and colour of uniform.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure the stability of the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  South West Thames regional health authority is responsible for the effective functioning of the London ambulance service. We understand that it is making progress in implementing the recommendations of the inquiry into the LAS, introducing new accountability arrangements and improving the authority's oversight of the LAS. We further understand that the LAS has developed a financial plan for discussion with purchasing authorities and has received transitional funding to assist in handling the loss of some of its patient transport service contracts. Ministers remain committed to the LAS as a Londonwide service, matching where possible health authority, police and fire service boundaries.

  January 1992 to October 1993

  Title

  Cost £

  Distribution

  Patient's Charter News Issue 3

  1,679

  National Health Service Managers

  Patient's Charter News Issue 4

  2,923

  National Health Service Managers

  Patient's Charter News Issue 5

  3,185

  National Health Service Managers

  Patient's Charter News Issue 6

  3,345

  National Health Service Managers

  Patient's Charter News Issue 7

  4,830

  National Health Service Managers

  Patient's Charter News Issue 8

  5,161

  National Health Service Managers

  Patient's Charter News Issue 9

  4,356

  National Health Service Managers

  Patient's Charter News Issue 10 (including Regional Round Up)

  9,296

  National Health Service Managers

  IMG News Issue No. 14 (Information Management Group)

  2,184

  National Health Service Managers

  IMG News Issue No. 15

  2,633

  National Health Service Managers

  IMG News Issue No. 16

  2,890

  National Health Service Managers

  IMG News Issue No. 17

  3,134

  National Health Service Managers

  This is the IMG1

  2,350

  National Health Service Managers

  312
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualitative guidance her Department has given South West Thames regional health authority on the procurement of information technology for the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Supplies Authority issued new guidance on information technology procurement in July this year. A copy of this guidance, "Procurement of Information Systems Effectively", is available in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with South West Thames regional health authority concerning proposals for computer systems for the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives regular reports from South West Thames regional health authority on the progress of the London ambulance service on the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry report, which includes directions on the implementation of any future computer-aided dispatch system.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to compensating those patients and their families who had treatment that could have infected them with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) on 27 May at column 671.

  NHS Management Executive
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pamphlets the national health service management executive published from January 1992 to January 1993 and from January 1993 to October 1993; if she will list the title, the recipients and the cost; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  During the period January 1992 to October 1993, the national health service management executive issued 61 pamphlets, leaflets and brochures. The table gives the description, cost and to whom they were sent. Copies of the documents will be placed in the Library.
  313

  Title

  Cost £

  Distribution

  Data Quality Review No. 4

  1,308

  National Health Service Managers

  Good Practice and Innovation in Contracting

  5,288

  National Health Service Managers

  Assessing Effects of Health Technologies

  17,201

  National Health Service Managers

  Nursing Research Taskforce Report

  10,520

  National Health Service Managers

  Specification of National Indicators Booklet

  23,021

  National Health Service Managers

  London Health No. 1

  12,706

  National Health Service Staff (London)

  London Health No. 2

  12,658

  National Health Service Staff (London)

  London Health No. 3

  19,347

  National Health Service Staff (London)

  London Health No. 4

  18,419

  National Health Service Staff (London)

  Community Care Booklet for Nurses

  53,961

  RCN Members, Directors of Social Services, National Health Service Managers

  ME News January 1993

  8,196

  National Health Service Managers

  ME News February 1993

  13,398

  National Health Service Managers

  ME News March 1993

  9,510

  National Health Service Managers

  ME News April 1993

  18,666

  National Health Service Managers

  ME News May 1993

  19,466

  National Health Service Managers

  ME News June 1993

  9,110

  National Health Service Managers

  ME News July 19931

  13

  National Health Service Managers

  ME News August 19931

  2,058

  National Health Service Managers

  ME News September 19931

  2,153

  National Health Service Managers

  Quality Compendium1

  368,000

  National Health Service Staff

  Fundholding News1

  4,010

  GP Fundholders

  Childcare Initiative Booklet

  13,280

  National Health Service Staff

  A Study of Midwife GP-led Maternity Units

  5,290

  National Health Service Managers

  Health Service Indicators Handbook 1993

  28,731

  National Health Service Managers

  Primary Care Opportunity 20001

  35,500

  National Health Service Staff

  Patient's Charter Distance Learning Pack

  68,009

  National Health Service Managers

  Purchasing for Health No. 21

  4,000

  National Health Service Managers

  VFM Update (Value for Money)

  2,764

  National Health Service Managers

  Named Nurse, Midwife and Health Visitor1

  30,000

  National Health Service Staff

  Patient's Charter Monitoring Practice Guide1

  35,000

  National Health Service Managers

  Purchasing for Health No. 31

  7,687

  National Health Service Managers

  Ethnic Minority Health

  45,015

  National Health Service Staff

  HOTN—Local Target Setting1 (Health of the Nation)

  25,000

  National Health Service Managers

  Research for Health Vol. 2

  63,499

  National Health Service Managers

  HSI Publicity—Prices Leaflet

  987

  National Health Service Managers

  Nursing Research Report

  4,030

  National Health Service Managers

  Patient's Charter1

  10,000

  GP Staff

  NHSME Chief Executive Award1

  10,000

  National Health Service Staff

  Day Surgery Task Force "Tool Kit"

  28,996

  Royal Colleges, National Health Service Managers, GPs, Nurse Trainers

  HOTN Local Target Setting Paper

  8,005

  National Health Service Managers

  Study of Midwifery and GP-led Maternity Units

  5,290

  National Health Service Managers

  Schools Out-Childcare booklet

  13,280

  National Health Service Managers

  New World New Opportunities

  3,450

  National Health Service Managers

  Research for Health

  49,016

  National Health Service Managers

  Value for Money

  2,764

  National Health Service Managers

  1 Estimated

  Traffic Casualties
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1979 the amount of money collected by the national health service in respect of payment for ambulance services to traffic casualties.

  Mr. Sackville
  No charge is made for the national health service emergency ambulance service.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since 1979 the amount of money collected by the national health service in respect of payment for hospital treatment of traffic casualties.

  Mr. Sackville
  Income received from Road Traffic Act charges for each year from 1979–80 to 1990–91 in cash terms for England, is set out in the table.
  314

  £000

  1979–80

  1,438

  1980–81

  2,722

  1981–82

  4,198

  1982–83

  5,894

  1983–84

  6,950

  1984–85

  7,324

  1985–86

  7,916

  1986–87

  7,871

  1987–88

  8,687

  1988–89

  8,748

  1989–90

  9,256

  1990–91

  9,080

  Note: The information for subsequent years is not collected centrally.

  Clinical Grading Appeals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, by region of origin, the number of outstanding clinical grading appeals at(a) district, (b) regional and (c) national level.
  315
  Mr. Sackville
  Of the 20,000 appeals outstanding in March 1993 there are now just over 6,000 outstanding. The details requested are shown in the table.

  Outstanding clinical grading appeals:1situation as at 30 September 1993

  Region

  Employing authority level

  Regional level

  National level

  Total

  North Western

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  956

  Mersey

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  890

  West Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  711

  Trent

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  691

  South Western

  0

  525

  102

  627

  North West Thames

  46

  464

  27

  537

  Yorkshire

  31

  272

  79

  382

  North East Thames

  20

  280

  22

  322

  Wessex

  0

  197

  70

  267

  South West Thames

  0

  0

  210

  210

  South East Thames

  0

  161

  40

  201

  Oxford

  0

  10

  158

  168

  East Anglian

  0

  82

  80

  162

  Northern

  2

  121

  34

  157

  Total

  6,281

  1 The table has been put together based on information supplied by Regional Health Authorities.

  Smokers (Health Care)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce guidelines to ensure equality of access to health care for smokers and non-smokers.

  Mr. Sackville
  A fundamental principle of the national health service, which is enshrined in the patients charter, is that clinical need continues to be the basis on which the NHS provides care to all. Decisions on the treatment of individual patients are properly a matter for clinical judgment by the clinicians responsible for their care, taking account of factors such as the likely success of that treatment. We have no plans to introduce further guidance in this area.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to privatise any of the services provided by the NHS Supplies Authority ; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Some services provided by the National Health Service Supplies Authority are already contracted out and the authority plans to expand the use of private sector partners where there is added value to services in doing so. Further development of these plans will be kept under review and discussed between the NHS Management Executive and the NHS Supplies Authority as part of the normal management review process.

  Depo-medrone
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether she will establish an immediate investigation into the level of the use of the drug Depo-medrone in epidural therapy within the NHS;

  (2) what advice has been issued by her Department to NHS doctors regarding possible side effects of using the drug Depo-medrone in epidural therapy;
  316
  (3) what representations have been received by her Department regarding the possible side-effects of the use of the drug Depo-medrone in epidural therapy.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has received a small number of inquiries from doctors on the side-effects of Depo-medrone when used by the epidural route and from patients who have received Depo-medrone epidurally.

  Depo-medrone is not licensed for epidural administration. The Department has issued no specific advice to doctors on this issue. The data sheet produced by the manufacturer and authorised by the Licensing Authority carries a clear warning that Depo-medrone should not be used for epidural administration. In addition, the data sheet contains warnings of the side-effects associated with the use of Depo-medrone when administered via non-licensed routes.

  Departmental officials are in discussion with relevant medical professional bodies about current clinical practice.

  Adoption
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish a White Paper on adoption.

  Mr. Bowis
  Shortly.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those self-governing trusts that have filed their current accounts, indicating what percentage of the total this represents.

  Mr. Sackville
  All national health service trusts have produced annual accounts for 1992–93. A small number are still subject to audit.

  Health Services, London
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effects of the Tomlinson proposals to close accident and emergency departments in central London on(a) the London ambulance service and (b) other central London casualty units; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Proposals for changes in the pattern of accident and emergency provision in inner London are being considered in the context of the overall changes to London's health services. As part of this process account is being taken of studies carried out by the London ambulance service. Additionally, the London implimentation group is taking other expert advice to ensure the implications of specific proposals are assessed fully.

  Camden and Islington Health Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with Camden and Islington health authority concerning its contracting decisions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. Camden and Islington health authority is responsible for commissioning health care for its residents. We understand the authority has issued for public consultation its proposals for contracting from next year.

  Pensioners (NHS Services)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest available estimate of the full cost to the Exchequer of introducing(a) free national health service sight tests and (b) free national health service dental examinations for all people over the state retirement age.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated costs of extending free national health service sight tests and free national health service dental examinations to all people above the state retirement age who are not currently eligible on other grounds are about £30 million and £10 million, respectively, in 1993–94.

  NHS Staff (Attacks)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures have been collected by her Department in relation to physical attacks on staff in national health service hospitals for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. These figures are not available centrally.

  Bloomfield Report
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to respond to the Bloomfield report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We will announce proposals for the future system of remuneration in the general dental services in due course.

  NHS Sight Tests
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of national health service sight tests paid for by the general ophthalmic services for each six-monthly period since October 1990.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers of national health service sight tests paid for in each six-monthly period since October 1990 in England are shown in the table.

  Numbers of national health service sight tests by financial year England

  Six monthly period

  Millions

  October 1990 to March 1991

  2·129

  April 1991 to September 1991

  2·411

  October 1991 to March 1992

  2·569

  April 1992 to September 1992

  2·695

  October 1992 to March 1993

  2·832

  Dentistry
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for estimated annual income from NHS dental examination charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The estimated income from dental examination charges is £63 million in 1993–94.

  Hospital Doctors (Clothing and Equipment)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what items of work clothing and equipment are issued as standard to every NHS hospital doctor; and what is the cost to the NHS of one of each item.
  318
  Dr. Mawhinney
  No standard clothing is issued to doctors by all hospitals, and no items of equipment are issued as standard: these are matters for local determination.

  Drugs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS patients who are to be treated using a drug in a manner which runs contrary to the advice of the manufacturer of that drug have a formal right to be informed of this fact.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the terms of the Medicines Act, if a doctor believes that an unlicensed drug, or the use of a licensed drug for an unlicensed indication or unlicensed route of administration, is the only one suitable for a patient, he or she may supply or administer the drug. It is for doctors to use their training, knowledge and experience to weigh carefully the likely benefits of a drug against the anticipated risks before choosing the most appropriate treatment for a particular patient. If a doctor wishes to use an unlicensed drug, or a licensed drug for an unlicensed route of administration or unlicensed indication, it is entirely his or her own responsibility and he or she will be answerable to the consequences. The patients charter emphasises the right of national health service patients to be given a clear explanation of any treatment proposed, including any risks and alternatives, before deciding whether to agree to the treatment. It remains for the doctor concerned, in the exercise of clinical judgment, to decide the precise information a patient should receive and the terms in which the warning of risks should be given.

  National Health Service Buildings, Leeds
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) those buildings in Leeds currently used by NHS management executive staff and (b) the date at which the office space was bought or leased.

  Mr. Sackville
  National Health Service Management Executive staff in Leeds are all housed in Quarry house. Quarry house was built as a crown building. It first came into use on 6 July 1992.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from medical practitioners in Northern Ireland on the closure of hospitals in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Several GPs have written to the Department of Health and Social Services about particular hospitals—for example, the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast, the Moyle hospital, Larne and the maternity unit at Tyrone county hospital, Omagh. The views of 43 GPs in the Downpatrick area about hospital services there were included in a report which was sent to the Department by the Downpatrick Community Health Committee.

  Inter-party Talks
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet together the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties.
  319
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have frequent contact with each of the leaders on a range of issues but have no immediate plans to meet them together.

  Belfast Airport
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from Northern Ireland Airport employees at Belfast international airport regarding privatisation; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received representations from the airport constabulary which I have discussed with them.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of the Northern Ireland Council of Voluntary Organisations to discuss the role of voluntary organisations in the determination of the distribution of European Community structural funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  On 1 February my right hon. and learned Friend discussed with representatives of the council a range of issues, including the next round of EC structural funds, and on 16 June gave the opening address at a conference organised by NICVA on "The Voluntary Sector and Europe". My own discussions with the Council on 30 September also covered structural funds issues.

  Surface Links with Scotland
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from bodies and individuals in Northern Ireland concerning the surface links with Scotland.

  Mr. Atkins
  During consultations for the preparation of the transportation programme Northern Ireland 1994–1999 21 bodies made representations on surface links with Scotland.

  IRA Funding
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is taking to limit the funding of the IRA.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The RUC has primacy in investigating, arresting and securing the prosecution of terrorist racketeers and financiers and the Government are giving them every assistance in their efforts. A terrorist finance unit has been set up within the Northern Ireland Office and works closely with the RUC in investigations and in designing effective countermeasures against terrorist fundraising activities. The Government have introduced special investigative powers for terrorist finances, backed up by criminal penalties and increased sentences for terrorist offences.

  Anglo-Irish Talks
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he is making in facilitating an agreement between the interested parties involved in the Northern Ireland peace process.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for the future government of Northern Ireland.
  320
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position on talks over constitutional issues in Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

  Health Care, Down
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representatives he has received from Down community health committee on matters relating to health care in Down district.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) earlier today.

  Housing Site Applications
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what co-ordination takes place between the planning and environmental interests when new housing site applications are being considered.

  Mr. Atkins
  Every planning application is subject to a range of consultations, which include environmental interests in appropriate cases.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held with political parties regarding the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My colleagues and I have been maintaining contacts with the main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government over the past weeks to establish how best we can make political progress. A new and more broadly based agreement or structure could be one of the outcomes of the talks process, arrived at through direct discussions between those concerned.

  Dublin Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with(a) the RUC and (b) Ministers or officials of the Irish Republic regarding the 1973 Dublin bombings.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Any such discussions would be confidential.

  Higher Education
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the number of students entering higher education in 1993–94.

  Mr. Ancram
  An estimated 8,070 students will enter full-time higher education in Northern Ireland institutions in 1993–94. This represents an estimated increase of 2 per cent. on 1992–93 and a 41 per cent. increase since 1988–89. Information is not yet available on the numbers of part-time students, postgraduate students, or those commencing higher education courses outside Northern Ireland.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed with members of the Eastern health and social services board the question of the closure of hospitals in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) earlier today.

  Cross-border Talks
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next hopes to meet the Irish Foreign Minister to discuss cross-border issues.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I look forward to meeting the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Dick Spring, within the next few weeks at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference.

  Security
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).

  Electricity Charges
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will further consider the need to protect Northern Ireland industrial, commercial and domestic electricity consumers against increased charges beyond the period of the present transitional relief period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to extend the existing substantial transitional relief arrangements further.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of ambulance staff in Northern Ireland employed by the NHS in 1990, 1991 and 1992, using whole time equivalents.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  30 September 1990

  584·50

  30 September 1991

  587·50

  30 September 1992

  585·51

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the percentage of ambulances in

  Minutes

  50 Per cent. within

  95 Per cent. within

  Urban areas (Population density: more than 3 persons per acre)

  7

  14

  Rural areas (Population density: between 3 and 0.5 persons per acre)

  8

  18

  322
  each service in Northern Ireland which responded within (a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) the first half of 1993–94.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  1992–93 per cent.

  11993–94 per cent.

  Per cent, responded to within 8 minutes

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  55

  56

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  60

  60

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  62

  58

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  60

  253

  Per cent, responded to in 18 to 21 minutes3

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  95

  97

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  96

  96

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  96

  93

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  95

  291

  Notes:

  1 First quarter only-second quarter figures are not available.

  2 Eastern Ambulance Service Health and Social Services Trust.

  3 Figures on the percentage of calls responded to between 14 and 20 minutes are not available as the Charter standards in Northern Ireland are set at 18 to 21 minutes.

  Mr. Patrick Doyle
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of all meetings held and correspondence exchanged in the past 10 years between his Department and Mr. Patrick Doyle, now of AST Training; what was the nature of such meetings or correspondence; what plans he has to meet Mr. Patrick Doyle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no records of any meetings held or correspondence exchanged in the last 10 years between the Northern Ireland Office or the Northern Ireland Departments and Mr. Patrick Doyle. There are no plans to meet Mr. Patrick Doyle.

WALES

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of ambulances in each service in Wales that responded within(a) eight minutes and (b) 14 to 20 minutes to emergency calls in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) the first half of 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The ambulance service classifications in Wales and their standards for emergency call response times are:
  323

  Minutes

  50 Per cent. within

  95 Per cent. within

  Sparsely populated areas (Population density: less than 0.5 persons per acre)

  8

  21

  Population density more than 3 persons per acre

  1992–93

  April to June 1993

  Percentage arriving within

  Percentage arriving within

  7 minutes

  14 minutes

  7 minutes

  14 minutes

  South Glamorgan

  54

  91

  59

  93

  Population density between 3 and 0.5 persons per acre

  1992–93

  April to June 1993

  Percentage arriving within

  Percentage arriving within

  8 minutes

  18 minutes

  8 minutes

  18 minutes

  Clwyd

  61

  97

  62

  97

  Gwent

  54

  96

  53

  97

  Mid Glamorgan

  61

  98

  51

  93

  West Glamorgan

  61

  95

  56

  90

  Population density less than 0.5 persons per acre

  1992–93

  April to June 1993

  Percentage arriving within

  Percentage arriving within

  8 minutes

  21 minutes

  8 minutes

  21 minutes

  East Dyfed

  59

  94

  59

  93

  Gwynedd

  57

  96

  58

  96

  Pembrokeshire

  42

  88

  46

  90

  Powys

  47

  89

  44

  88

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of ambulance staff in Wales employed by the NHS in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The whole-time equivalent number of ambulance staff in post at 30 September each year was as follows:

  Number

  1990

  1,548

  1991

  1,565

  1992

  1,547

  1993

  1,538

  The figures include ambulancemen and women, ambulance officers and control assistants.

  Medicines Evaluation Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had in relation to the case for designating Cardiff as the location for the proposed European medicines evaluation agency and the benefits that would be created by the presence of the staff of the agency being employed in Wales.
  324
  Information is not yet available for the quarter ended 30 September 1993. Figures for 1992–93 and the first quarter of 1993–94 are shown in the following table:

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  After extensive consideration the Government decided that the United Kingdom's bid for the European medicines evaluation agency would best be led by the pharmaceutical industry. A strong bid is being mounted by the industry, based on a site in the London area. The Government fully support the industry's bid.

  Mr. Patrick Doyle
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of all meetings held and correspondence exchanged in the past 10 years between his Department and Mr. Patrick Doyle, now of AST Training; what was the nature of such meetings or correspondence; what plans he has to meet Mr. Patrick Doyle; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have no plans to meet Mr. Doyle. Following a check on centrally held records of correspondence to Welsh Office Ministers, which would include requests for meetings, no correspondence from Mr. Doyle has been found.

  Caerphilly Town Centre
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce his response to the current application for urban investment grant in respect of the Caerphilly town centre redevelopment proposal.
  325
  Mr. Redwood
  I am currently considering the recommendations of my independent panel of assessors and hope to make an announcement shortly.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been undertaken by his Department into the nephrotoxicity of soluble depleted uranium used in armour piercing shells by the Army.

  Mr. Hanley
  The testing and use of armour-piercing shells by the Army does not produce soluble depleted uranium and therefore my Department has not conducted studies in this area.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the total number of casualties amongst British Forces serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina since deployment.

  Mr. Hanley
  There has been one death, that of Lance Corporal Edwards on 13 January this year, and 17 injuries sustained by British soldiers in the course of their duties with UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina, from causes which include gunshot wounds, mine blast injuries and shrapnel wounds.

  D-Notices
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operation of the new D-notice arrangements since the establishment of the defence advisory notice system on 1 August.

  Mr. Hanley
  Copies of the six defence advisory notices which replace the former eight D-notices have been widely distributed within the media and to those members of the public who have asked for them. Altogether some 800 copies have been issued. I understand that, since they came into effect on 1 August, the defence advisory notices have been used on a number of occasions to help editors, producers and publishers on issues of national security when they are considering what to publish.

  Air Force Targets
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if simulated attacks on civil airfields are included in the training syllabus for Royal Air Force Tornado F3 operational squadrons.

  Mr. Hanley
  No.

  Maralinga Test Site
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to exchange notes with representatives of the Federal Government of Australia about an agreement over the ex-gratia payment to be made by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the clearing of the former United Kingdom atomic bomb test site at Maralinga, South Australia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 14 July 1993 the United Kingdom Government agreed in principle to make an ex-gratia 326
  payment to the Federal Government of Australia as a contribution to the cost of the further clean-up of the Maralinga site. Preparation of the legal documents giving effect to this agreement is at an advanced stage.

  Ministry Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and titles of the Ministry of Defence Police Committee.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 18 October,Official Report, columns 64–65.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for and extent of the changes he is proposing for the Ministry of Defence Police Committee; and when he intends to table the statutory instrument giving effect to those changes.

  Mr. Hanley
  From time to time the composition of the Ministry of Defence Police Committee needs to change to reflect departmental reorganisations. Two such changes are set out in the answer I gave the hon. Member on 18 October,Official Report, columns 64–65. In addition, to reflect the strategic management board arrangements for the Ministry of Defence Police when it becomes a Defence Agency and to avoid having two committees, we are proposing to augment the police committee by conferring full member status on the chief constable, the deputy chief constable and head of the secretariat, subject to satisfactory legal opinion. The statutory instrument will be tabled shortly after legal advice has been given.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to permit the Ministry of Defence Police Federation to send observers to those parts of the meetings of the Ministry of Defence Police Committee which do not relate to individual cases, or pay negotiations, and whose business is comparable to those agenda items of county police committees that would normally be considered in public under part I of the agenda;

  (2) when the Ministry of Defence Police Federation were last invited to attend a meeting of the Ministry of Defence Police Committee.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence Police Committee is different from a county police committee. While it is not considered appropriate that observers from the Ministry of Defence Police Federation should attend on a regular basis it has been acknowledged that there many be occasions when, at the discretion of the chairman and committee members, the Defence Police Federation could be invited to attend should it be considered appropriate..

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects Sir John Blelloch's committee of inquiry into the Ministry of Defence police to commence its work; and when he expects it will make its report.

  Mr. Hanley
  I expect the committee to begin its work as soon as terms of reference and membership have been finalised and after my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has announced the Government's response to Sir Patrick Sheehy's committee's report on police responsibilities and rewards. The committee is expected to report as soon as it has completed its work.
  327
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the report of the committee of inquiry into the Ministry of Defence police will be published.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes, although it is too soon to speculate on the form this will take.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name and give the background of members of the Blelloch committee of inquiry into the Ministry of Defence police together with the name and address of the committee's secretary.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. The committee secretary has yet to be appointed, but meanwhile any submissions to the review team may be addressed through the chief constable, Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to set up the Ministry of Defence police agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  As I announced to the House on 19 October,Official Report, column 171, our plans envisage the Ministry of Defence police being the next support organisation to become a defence agency.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation there has been with the Ministry of Defence Police Federation about(a) the contents of the draft statutory instrument relating to the proposed amendments to the police committee's constitution and (b) the membership and terms of reference of the Blellock committee of inquiry into the Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Hanley
  No consultation with the Ministry of Defence Police Federation has taken place on the contents of the draft statutory instrument relating to the proposed amendments to the police committee's membership; nor is it appropriate. My Department wrote to the Ministry of Defence Police Federation last month about the committee of inquiry and the draft terms of reference will be discussed with it before finalisation.

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what animal species(a) have been used and (b) are currently used by his Department and defence contractors to test impact consequences on aero-engines.

  Mr. Aitken
  Animal impact tests on aero-engines are usually carried out by the engine manufacturer. Commonly, dead chickens or ducks are used for these tests. No work of this type is currently undertaken within my Department.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent Royal Navy vessels are currently involved in projects to ascertain the abundance and distribution of cetaceans.

  Mr. Hanley
  Royal Navy vessels keep a record of sightings of marine natural phenomena of special scientific interest. This includes all sightings of cetaceans. These records are then made available to interested scientific bodies.
  328
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research projects are currently under way in his Department on echo location used by cetaceans.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are no research projects currently under way in, or sponsored by, my Department on echo location used by cetaceans.

  Surface Ship Command System
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it was decided not to fit the surface ship command system in RFA Fort Victoria and RFA Fort George; why the decision was taken; what are the financial consequences; what adaptations are required as a result and at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The decision not to fit the previously intended surface ship command system to the AORs was taken during financial year 1992–93 following the decision not to fit the ships with the vertical launch Seawolf defence system. The latter decision means that a less sophisticated command system is now appropriate with a consequent saving to the defence budget. We do not expect any adaptations as a result of this decision.

  5 Airborne Brigade
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many light strike vehicles it was originally proposed to purchase for 5 Airborne Brigade; of what type and at what cost; what vehicles were to be replaced as a result; when and why this order was postponed; what are the operational implications for the brigade's tactical mobility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have never had any plans to place an order for a light strike vehicle for 5 Airborne Brigade.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pensions (Women)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many married women reached pensionable age in each of the years 1979 to 1992 and made full class one contributions which were one, two or three years, respectively, short of the requisite number of qualifying years for a 25 per cent. pension.

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

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many married women qualified for a category B retirement pension in each year since 1979; and what information he has as to age at the time they first qualified.

  Mr. Hague
  Not all the information in the form requested is available. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  329

  Awards of category B retirement pension to married women

  6 months ending 6 April 1979

  8 months ending 30 November 1979

  6 months ending 31 May 1980

  13 months ending 30 June 1981

  5 months ending 30 November 1981

  6 months ending 31 May 1982

  4 months ending 30 September 1982

  All ages

  51,660

  104,910

  90,000

  164,510

  56,380

  71,044

  44,360

  Age 60

  14,730

  30,170

  33,190

  52,270

  20,690

  24,630

  16,600

  Age 61

  3,910

  7,990

  6,420

  18,270

  4,920

  5,420

  3,180

  Age 62

  5,430

  9,220

  6,770

  12,490

  4,310

  6,360

  4,440

  Age 63

  5,620

  11,560

  8,660

  13,730

  5,120

  6,280

  3,530

  Age 64

  6,190

  11,570

  8,580

  15,240

  4,850

  6,160

  3,950

  Age 65

  5,400

  10,840

  8,670

  15,800

  5,290

  6,820

  3,700

  Age 66

  3,040

  6,820

  5,140

  11,220

  3,050

  4,630

  2,190

  Age 67

  2,280

  4,780

  3,530

  7,220

  2,210

  2,830

  1,190

  Age 68

  1,300

  3,620

  2,440

  5,540

  1,690

  2,410

  1,340

  Age 69

  1,220

  2,530

  1,870

  3,750

  1,170

  1,670

  1,050

  Age 70 to 74

  2,280

  5,180

  4,090

  7,570

  2,710

  3,445

  2,170

  Age 75 to 79

  260

  530

  520

  1,280

  310

  238

  250

  Age 80 and over

  —

  100

  120

  130

  60

  147

  50

  6 months ending 31 March 1982

  6 months ending 30 September 1983

  6 months ending 31 March 1984

  12 months ending 31 March 1985

  6 months ending 30 September 1985

  6 months ending 31 March 1986

  12 months ending 30 September 1986

  All ages

  50,710

  54,430

  53,220

  103,630

  59,380

  60,340

  113,540

  Age 60

  21,180

  22,230

  20,150

  39,640

  21,830

  23,600

  45,250

  Age 61

  3,570

  3,090

  3,350

  5,760

  4,150

  4,570

  9,470

  Age 62

  4,270

  4,230

  4,360

  7,480

  4,510

  4,250

  7,600

  Age 63

  4,140

  5,420

  4,930

  8,960

  5,350

  4,860

  8,280

  Age 64

  4,090

  4,250

  4,480

  10,070

  5,700

  5,250

  9,050

  Age 65

  3,760

  4,260

  4,930

  10,030

  6,020

  6,050

  10,220

  Age 66

  2,420

  2,730

  2,480

  5,560

  2,750

  3,230

  7,450

  Age 67

  1,880

  2,160

  2,180

  4,050

  2,110

  2,210

  3,960

  Age 68

  1,530

  1,510

  1,790

  3,280

  1,840

  1,480

  3,170

  Age 69

  1,160

  1,430

  1,460

  2,680

  1,360

  1,370

  2,470

  Age 70 to 74

  2,230

  2,650

  2,620

  5,170

  3,210

  2,820

  5,370

  Age 75 to 79

  410

  390

  430

  790

  480

  600

  1,080

  Age 80 and over

  70

  80

  60

  160

  70

  50

  170

  12 months ending 30 September 1987

  6 months ending 31 March 1988

  6 months ending 30 September 1988

  6 months ending 31 March 1989

  All ages

  94,110

  45,860

  43,380

  42,440

  Age 60

  41,980

  21,870

  20,960

  20,320

  61

  7,020

  3,200

  2,960

  3,080

  62

  7,150

  3,570

  3,540

  3,240

  63

  7,220

  3,560

  3,590

  3,420

  64

  6,860

  2,830

  3,120

  3,260

  65

  7,580

  3,550

  2,950

  3,150

  66

  4,540

  1,800

  1,570

  1,330

  67

  3,470

  1,470

  1,220

  1,120

  68

  2,090

  1,170

  1,140

  1,030

  69

  1,450

  780

  500

  680

  70 to 74

  3,870

  1,650

  1,410

  1,430

  75 to 79

  730

  400

  360

  350

  80 and over

  150

  10

  60

  30

  Occupational Pensions Review
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to extend the review of occupational pensions undertaken by the Pension Law Review Committee to consider problems and issues concerning private pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  The Pension Law Review Committee was set up in June last year to review the whole framework of law and regulation of occupational pension schemes. This 330
  wide-ranging review covered both the private and public provision of occupational pensions. The committee reported its findings to the Secretary of State for Social Security who published the report on 30 September (CM 2432). Having fulfilled its terms of reference, the committee has now been disbanded and the Government are making a start on the detailed consideration of the committee's recommendations.

  Late Appeals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance has been issued to chairpersons of social security appeals tribunals on the issue of late appeals addressing CSIS 4/90;

  (2) what guidance has been issued to the chairpersons of social security appeal tribunals on (a) admission of late appeals following favourable commissioners' decisions and (b) an interpretation of special reasons in regulation 3(3) of the Social Security (Adjudications) Regulations; and whether such guidance is publicly available.

  Mr. Burt
  The guidance of chairmen of social security appeals tribunals is a matter for the President of the independent tribunal service, his honour Judge Thorpe, and he will be writing to the hon. Member direct on this matter.

  Single Parents (Benefits)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single parents are(a) claiming unemployment benefit, (b) receiving income support and

  331
  (c) living in rented accommodation and receiving housing benefit; and what percentage of the recipients in each category they represent.

  Mr. Burt
  Figures for the number of single parents receiving only unemployment benefit are not available. The latest available information on single parents receiving income support with and without unemployment benefit, and receiving housing benefit with and without income support is for 1992 and is in the tables.

  Number of single parents in receipt of income support

  Number of cases

  Percentage of all income support cases

  With unemployment benefit

  3,000

  0·1

  Without unemployment benefit

  1,023,000

  18·6

  All cases

  1,026,000

  18·7

  Number of single parents in receipt of housing benefit

  Number of cases

  Percentage of all housing benefit cases

  With income support

  730,000

  28·0

  Without indomce support

  87,000

  5·0

  All cases

  817,000

  19·0

  Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Figures may overlap as people can receive more than one of these benefits.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations his Department has received regarding the implementation of the Child Support Agency since its inception.

  Mr. Burt
  Between 5 April 1993 and 30 September 1993 the Department of Social Security headquarters and the Child Support Agency headquarters received in the region of 1,200 written representations covering a range of views about child support issues.

  State Pensions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what amount the state pension will be increased next year for(a) single and (b) married pensioners.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement about next year's uprating of benefits as usual in due course.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) those firms who were asked to bid for the management contract for Quarry house, Leeds and (b) the value of the contract awarded to the successful contractor.

  Mr. Burt
  The firms invited to bid were:

  P and O Total Facilities Management;

  Matthew Hall;

  Ferguson Bucknall Austin;

  Property and Facilities Management.

  It would be a breach of commercial confidentiality to disclose the value of the contract.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to set up a committee to make recommendations for the organisation and management of the new local authorities along the lines of the Paterson committee in the previous reorganisation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 October 1993]: Much of the advice contained in the Paterson report continues to serve local government well today. The Government have already made it clear in their White Paper, "Shaping the Future—The New Councils" that it is not proposed to make provision in legislation for alternative forms of local government organisation and management to replace the existing committee-based system which was endorsed by the Paterson committee. It was agreed, however, in discussions of the joint Scottish Office/Convention of Scottish Local Authorities steering group and working group, which was established last year to consider internal management issues, that there was scope for guidance on possible developments in management structures within this basic statutory framework, and that this might best be taken forward from within local government itself.

EMPLOYMENT

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will press in the Social Affairs Council for a rollover facility in the current year for grants from the European social fund into 1994.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In July, the Foreign Affairs Council reached agreement on new regulations which will govern procedures for making grants under the structural funds, including the European social fund, from 1 January 1994. The Government argued strongly for a rollover year or similar transitional arrangements during the negotiations on the new regulations, but in the absence of support from other member states was unsuccessful in securing them.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish tables showing the percentage of those people who are registered as unemployed who are aged 24 years or under, according to the latest available figures, in each parliamentary constituency in(a) Great Britain and (b) England, and if he will publish the tables in rank order.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Official unemployment rates are not available for areas smaller than the self-contained labour markets known as travel-to-work areas. Unadjusted data on claimant unemployment levels, by age, in each parliamentary constituency are available quarterly for the months of January, April, July and October from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people aged(a) 16 or 17 years and (b) 18 to 24 years living in (i) York parliamentary

  333
  constituency, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) Great Britain were registered as unemployed at April 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Unadjusted claimant Unemployment by Age (April 1991)

  Under 18

  18–24

  York Parliamentary Constituency

  1

  1,127

  North Yorkshire

  15

  4,712

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  285

  64,296

  Great Britain

  3,027

  632,710

  Note: Since September 1988 and coinciding with the extension of a guaranteed Youth Training Scheme now Youth Training (YT) place to all those aged under 18 not in full time education or employment, those who decline an offer of a YT place are no longer entitled to unemployment-related benefits except in cases of severe hardship.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what requests he has received from BNFL trade unions since 28 June for a meeting on the employment implications of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant and associated nuclear facilities upon the Cumbrian economy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 28 June, we have received one request from trade unions at BNFL for a meeting on the employment and local economic implications of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP).

  Environmental Technology
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives have been taken in 1993 by training and enterprise councils, in conjunction with private industry, to promote job creation in environmental projects and manufacture of environmental technology.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not generally available centrally, but I am aware of several good examples. For instance, West London training and enterprise council has a series of initiatives to help businesses to become more environmentally conscious ; Northumberland TEC is involved in a project developing business and management training with a key objective to improve the understanding of environmental issues; and Dudley TEC has piloted a project which links schools and employers in projects on environmental and amenity improvements to industrial premises using computer technology.

  Noel Employment Ltd.
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 474, for what reasons his Department judged that the temporary employees of Noel Employment Ltd. were to be refused redundancy payments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Claims from the majority of temporary workers were rejected because they were not considered to be "employees" as defined in section 153 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The Department examined all the relevant contract documentation which indicated that in the majority of cases there was 334
  no obligation on the company to provide work, or for the temporary workers to accept it and that the temporary workers were free to work for other agencies between engagements. Nor were there any contractual arrangements for holiday, sick pay or pay for bank holidays which would normally be associated with a contract of service.

  Two separate industrial tribunals have since upheld the Department's view that these factors were inconsistent with employee status for the purposes of the 1978 Act.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish dates of all meetings with outside persons or bodies and titles of all non-departmental briefing papers or any associated material concerning the possible amendment of sections 1(1), 1(2) or 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; what plans he has to amend sections 1(1), 1(2) or 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974 in respect of matters relating to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There have been many discussions of a wide range of issues arising from the Health and Safety Commission's review of regulation, including those within the seven sectoral task groups. Any question of amendment of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 would take into consideration the findings of the Health and Safety Commission's review.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each of the past five years, the total number of each of forms OSR1, OSR7, F9, F10, F1229, F2252, F2522, F2404 and ASB5 received by the Health and Safety Executive and the total number estimated to be outstanding for each year; and what action the Health and Safety Executive took in each year to chase up outstanding forms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information about the number of forms OSR1, F9, F10, F1229, F2252, F2522 and ASB5 received by the Health and Safety Executive is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Forms OSR7 and F2404 are not required to be sent to HSE. As part of its inspection strategy, HSE seeks out premises that are not registered. Additionally and where relevant, during the course of inspection visits HSE inspectors remind occupiers of the requirement to provide formal notification to HSE as appropriate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each of the past five years, the total number of inspections made by health and safety inspectors in relation to completion by employers of each of forms F31, F32, F34, F35, F36, F44A, F47, F55, F55A, F57, F59, F60, F339, F658, F750, F751, F1327, F1952, F2032, F2067, F2197, F2198, F2346, F2351, F2362, F2525, F2526, F2527, F2530 and F2531 and the total number of inspectors available to make such inspections; what was the total number of establishments found not to have completed such forms; and what action the Health and Safety Executive took in each year to chase up outstanding forms.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The forms listed should be completed in various circumstances under the Factories Act 1961. Forms F658, F1327 and F2362 are no longer used.
  335
  The following table shows the total number of planned inspection visits made by FI in the last five years and the number of factory inspectors in post in the field at 1 April in each year.

  Year (1 April to 31 March)

  Number of planned inspections

  Number of inspectors

  1988–89

  118,903

  514·5

  1989–90

  126,495

  527·0

  1990–91

  130,016

  558·5

  1991–92

  130,275

  577·0

  1992–93

  121,486

  608·0

  The primary purpose of planned inspection visits is to consider compliance with health and safety legislation and where necessary to give advice and guidance to employers and others. During visits inspectors consider the use of statutory forms and impress on occupiers, where appropriate, the importance of them.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each of the past 10 years the total number of forms(a) UB77 and UB77A and (b) UB78A and UB78B issued by the employment service, and the total numbers of cases in each case where entitlement to unemployment benefit was subsequently withdrawn or not allowed.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 21 October 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write direct to respond to your

  July

  August

  September

  October

  Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals

  30

  14

  23

  11

  Communications and transport

  29

  1

  22

  28

  Construction

  15, 27

  19, 25

  16

  15

  Engineering industries

  21

  10, 24

  —

  4, 8

  Food, drink and agriculture

  19

  16

  24

  11

  Financial services

  22

  26

  9

  19

  Other services

  7

  11

  8

  6

  The Groups have been asked to complete their work by March 1994.

  All health and safety regulations are being considered in the review. The findings of the seven sectoral task groups will be considered by the Health and Safety Commission and reported to me. Any regulations considered suitable for reform will be subject to the usual consultation procedures established by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The work of the sectoral groups is continuing.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table listing(a) all regulations suggested by his Department to the Health and Safety Commission or by the Health and Safety Commission to his Department as candidates for revocation as part of the deregulation initiative, (b) the purpose and function of each of these regulations, (c)
  336
  Parliamentary Question to him about the total number of forms UB77, UB77A, UB78A and UB78B issued by the Employment Service in each of the last ten years, and the total number of cases where entitlement to unemployment benefit was subsequently withdrawn or not allowed. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  UB77 and UB78 forms are sent to employers to establish an individual's entitlement to unemployment benefit. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide the numbers we issue each year because this information is not collated or published.
  I am sorry I cannot be of help on this occasion.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a list of all correspondence sent by his Department to the Health and Safety Commission or from the Health and Safety Commission to his Department containing suggested regulations to be considered for revocation as part of the deregulation initiative, the dates on which correspondence was sent and the dates on which each of the seven Health and Safety Commission's sectoral task groups for deregulation were established, have met and plan to complete their consideration.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There has been no correspondence between the Department and the Health and Safety Commission on this issue.

  The Health and Safety Commission established seven sectoral task groups to help it to undertake its review of health and safety regulation. The appointment of the chairmen and members of each of the seven groups runs from 1 July 1993 to 30 April 1994.

  The following table gives the dates on which each of the seven sector task groups have met:

  whether it is suggested that the regulations be (i) amended, (ii) abolished, (iii) replaced with self-regulation or (iv) replaced with other regulation; whether, for each regulation, revocation without replacement or with self-regulation would require amendment of section 1(1), 1(2) and 15(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All health and safety legislation for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible is being reviewed as part of the Health and Safety Commission's review of regulation. If, during the course of that review or at its conclusion, the Health and Safety Commission takes the view that reform of parts of the legislation would be desirable, the Health and Safety Commission will publish a consultative document containing its proposals. At the end of the
  337
  consultation period the Health and Safety Commission will put forward its proposals to us in accordance with section 11 of the Health and Safety at Work etc, Act 1974.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a list of all regulations submitted by his Department for inclusion in the deregulation unit's list of regulations affecting business together with the estimated enforcement costs and compliance costs for each separate regulation and, for those regulations for which such costs are not yet available, the target date by which he intends to submit such costs to the deregulation unit.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of all regulations for which the Department, including the Health and Safety Executive, is responsible, were forwarded to the deregulation unit and incorporated in the baseline-document placed in the Library on 20 April. As part of the Government's deregulation initiative, the Department is currently undertaking reviews of all its regulations. As part of these reviews we aim to assess compliance costs. The reviews will be completed by April 1994.

  Mr. Patrick Doyle
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a list of all meetings held and correspondence exchanged in the past 10 years between his Department and Mr. Patrick Doyle, now of AST Training; what was the nature of such meetings or correspondence; what plans he has to meet Mr. Patrick Doyle; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department has found no record of any meetings or correspondence with Mr. Patrick Doyle, now of AST Training. Neither I nor any other Ministers in the Department have any plans to meet Mr. Doyle.

  Injured Trainees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each of the past 10 years the total number of accident report forms CHS 76 completed by training providers and the total number of cases in which the injured trainee was deemed to be entitled to injury benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The total number of accident report forms CHS 76 completed by training providers and submitted to the Department for each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Number

  1983

  2,802

  1984

  2,278

  1985

  2,529

  1986

  2,771

  1987

  3,616

  1988

  4,039

  1989

  4,746

  1990

  3,811

  1991

  2,691

  11992

  973

  1 From April 1992 forms CHS 76 were forwarded to the Department only for those injured trainees who had been terminated from their training schemes, or who suffered a major injury as defined in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation 1985 (RIDDOR).

  338
  The total number of cases in which the injured trainee was deemed to be entitled to injury benefit for the years 1990 to 1992 are as follows:

  Number of forms received

  Number entitled to benefit

  1990

  3,811

  1,067

  1991

  2,691

  877

  1992

  973

  592

  Figures for previous years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing for each of the past 10 years the total number of forms DP39 received and DP40 issued by his Department.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 21 October 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to him about the publication of a table showing the total number of forms DP39 received and DP4Os issued by his Department for each of the past 10 years. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I regret that I am unable to provide the precise information you asked for. We do not collect statistics centrally on applications for permits under the provisions of the Quota Scheme (form DP39), or the Designated Employment Scheme (DP40).
  We do, however, collect data on the numbers of employers issued with permits (DP42) under the Quota Scheme each year. This is taken from annual returns from our Local Offices on the extent to which employers in their areas are complying with the requirements of the Scheme as at 1 June. I attach a table showing, for each of the last 10 years, the number of employers within scope of the Scheme, ie those with 20 or more employees who were not employing their full 3 per cent. quota of registered disabled people on 1 June, but who had been issued with permits during the previous 12 months.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administrative Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive Replies to written Parliamentary Questions will be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Table

  Numbers ofbelow-quota employers issued with permits (DP42) 12 months to 1 June

  Number

  1983

  18,536

  1984

  18,770

  1985

  18,681

  1986

  18,840

  1987

  18,577

  1988

  18,594

  1989

  18,530

  1990

  18,038

  1991

  17,649

  1992

  15,871

  Technical and Vocational Initiative
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the level of funding for the technical and vocational education initiative provided by(a) his Department and (b) local education authorities for each financial year since its introduction.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following table shows the Department's expenditure on the technical and vocational education initiative since its introduction in September 1983 to March 1993.

  The Department does not collate data on expenditure by local education authorities in relation to TVEI, though authorities and grant maintained schools do contribute to TVEI aims.
  340

  Employment Department expenditure on TVEI

  £million

  1983–84

  1—

  1984–85

  26

  1985–86

  39

  1986–87

  70

  1987–88

  58

  1988–89

  88

  1989–90

  129

  1990–91

  135

  1991–92

  154

  1992–93

  2143

  1 Not separately identified.

  2 Forecast Out-turn.

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

European Community: Descriptive Title
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will confirm that, in the foreseeable future, the descriptive title "European Community" will continue to be used to identify each of the institutions named in Article 1 of the treaty establishing the European Community; to all committees and other bodies appointed by them and answerable to them; and to authenticate descriptively all decisions, directives, regulations, rules, recommendations, communications, logos, insignia and all other information material issued by and on behalf of the Community, to the exclusion of the term "European Union" in respect of all matters covered by the said treaty.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the European Communities, that is the EEC, Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community, will remain in being after the Maastricht Treaty enters into force. They are not replaced by the European Union. No decisions have yet been taken on where it may be appropriate to replace "European Communities" by "European Union" as a descriptive title.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply. However, is she aware that her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in his definitive article in the Economist on 25th September, referred to the European Community no less than 40 times, of which five related to its future progress, and that not once was the question of European Union mentioned? Is the Minister further aware that there is a substantial caucus in Europe at present which has ganged up against the United Kingdom and which would wish to see a European Union established as an identity to the exclusion of the term "Community" as an ultimate means of weighting opinion in favour of a federal union of Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of both points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I must make it clear that the Union itself has no international, legal personality. In more formal contexts, it must be clear that the member states are concluding agreements in their own names. Whatever phrase is used to describe the member states acting together in CFSP, it must be clear that it is the member states who take the decisions on the obligations.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, should we not be careful of being mesmerised by words and names? Are there not such organisations as the Church Union, the Western European Union, the National Union of Mineworkers and, indeed, many other unions and no one thinks that they deprive us of our essential liberties?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a marvellous point. Moreover, I do not think that anyone has ever objected to the Mothers' Union.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister will no doubt have seen that in the Guardian today there is reference to the European Community and not to the European Union, especially as regards an allegation that the Government are throwing away the opportunity to create no less than 50,000 training places for the unemployed by failing to claim up to £100 million in grants which would be available from the European Community. Whether one calls it a "Community" or a "Union", can the Minister either confirm or deny whether that is true? I am sure that, with her customary assiduity and application to her job, she knows the answer.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the story in today's edition of the Guardian is both mischievous and inaccurate. The United Kingdom has not turned down any money from the European Social Fund. Despite repeated requests to the Commission for clear guidance, the Commission has so far failed to explain satisfactorily how it calculates the balance of money due to the UK at the end of individual annual programmes. Until the Commission does so, it is impossible for us to make an accurate forecast of future receipts from Brussels.
Despite the Commission's failure to respond, we decided that urgent discussions should, nevertheless, be put in train to identify a solution, thus enabling the UK to make full use of the funds that it has been allocated—and that we are busy doing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the: Minister agree that there is a qualitative difference between the words "union" and "community"? Although words may not mean too much to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, they mean a great deal to other people. Is it not the history of the EC that it has achieved power by ratchet effect? The word "union" will be used by the Federalists as yet another ratchet to achieve their full aim of a European superstate.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is wrong as regards his final point. As many noble Lords will remember, the term "European Union" was first put forward in the Stuttgart Declaration 1983 and then appeared in the preamble to the Single European Act. Perhaps I may remind the House that it was defined only for the first time in Article A of the Maastricht Treaty as follows:
"The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cc-operation established by this Treaty".

633
That applies to Titles V and VI referring to "common foreign and security policy and home and justice affairs. It is not the Trojan horse that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, seems to think it is. It is a way of referring to the Community as the body which is serviced by the Commission and the Union, which is wider than the Community.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, leaving aside the question of whether it is a union, a community or whatever, perhaps I may refer to the issue of the social fund. Can I take it that the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Richard means that the big issue of additionality in obtaining money from the social fund is not a problem for the Government and that they will find the additional funds to enable us to obtain that £100 million?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am informed that the United Kingdom intends to make full use of the funds that it has been allocated. Therefore, the noble Lord must be right in his assumption.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the Minister's previous reply to my supplementary question, and reverting to the Question on the Order Paper, will she inform the House what action the Government propose to take in the forthcoming European Council to be held on 29th October if the proposal to use the term "European Union" is in fact proposed by the presidency and supported by other states? Will she undertake to veto the use of the term if it is proposed in that sense?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is a sense in which I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, gets over-excited about this matter. The Union itself has no financial resources. The noble Lord has been most concerned with financial resources. That is why Article F3 cannot be used to obtain such resources. I believe that, as we have made clear on many occasions, what is decided in the European Council is a matter of what goes on the agenda and what the member states' governments decide. I do not see the dangers that the noble Lord envisages and I will bring his concerns to the attention of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does that mean yes or no?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it depends which of the many questions which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, frequently asks me is being referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness was asked whether she would veto any suggestion by the presidency that the word "Union" should be more widely used. Will she do so or not?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I believe I explained in my first supplementary reply, the word "Union" is defined in Article A of the Maastricht Treaty. In our many hours of long debates I made it clear that when the European Communities are further
634
enhanced by common foreign and security policy and home and justice affairs they will be known as the Union; that is, the combined enterprise will be known as the Union.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the availability of the £100 million depend on this country spending an equal or similar amount?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is way beyond the scope of the original Question, but the matter will depend on whether the Commission can give us a proper answer to the questions that we have rightly asked about how it calculates the balance of moneys due to the United Kingdom.

BT: Video Services
3.12 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend licensing British Telecommunications plc to convey or retail video entertainment services to the public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, British Telecommunications plc is already licensed to provide a wide range of telecommunications services to the public. There has been speculation recently about whether such services could include what has become known as "video on demand". Her Majesty's Government's view is that BT's licence could permit certain types of video on demand service.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful for my noble friend's Answer. Is he aware that it is perceived in many quarters that, should the measure he has mentioned come to pass, it would constitute a considerable breach of undertakings given to the many companies which have invested, and which propose to invest, billions of pounds in the telecommunications infrastructure in this country? Not only would that be jeopardised but the measure proposed would also encourage the maintenance of the old twisted copper-pair wiring, which is sitting in the ground at the moment, and which must be replaced as soon as possible.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, video on demand would constitute a new service and many technical, regulatory and commercial details are still unclear. However, if my noble friend feels he has a case that has not been heard by the Government, I should be interested to hear representations from all interested parties.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, would such services be subject to the video recordings Act and to the British board of film control, which also statutorily controls video services?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, all contents of programmes transmitted via video on demand services would come under rules and regulations governing contents.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, whatever further decisions the Government may take in this matter, will they bear in mind—the noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned this—that massive investment has been undertaken by cable television companies? Will the Government also bear in mind that these schemes are in their infancy and nothing should be done to stifle that investment? As the Government often remind us, they are dedicated to consumer choice, and cable television, which incidentally almost always includes telephony, would add greatly to that choice. These are factors that the Government should take into consideration when dealing with this matter.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government have certainly always supported consumer choice and indeed the choice that is supplied by cable television companies. The cable television industry in this country has been enormously successful over the course of the past few years and provides a most valuable service.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am astonished by the Minister's reply. Surely, if we wish to satisfy consumer demand, the only criterion is competition. Why would the Government be a party to limiting any new entrant to this field by using licensing? Surely the Minister's correct answer is that the cable companies and every other company have to take their chances in the marketplace and if British Telecom can offer a competing service, the Government, far from worrying about licensing, should he encouraging it. Does he not agree with that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, expressed the matter very well. I hope he did not misunderstand my earlier replies. We believe that British Telecom should be allowed to develop a new service, which is why I said in my original Answer that its licence currently allows it to do so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Minister seemed to take seriously the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. With all respect, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, had a vested interest in that point, although not in a personal sense. The point was made that, because the cable companies have made a large investment in this area, the Government have some obligation to them. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have no obligation to the cable companies? The Government have an obligation to consumers who might wish to watch videos—I have no idea why they should wish to do so—to offer them a competitive service at the lowest price.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I said to my noble friend Lord Morris that if the cable companies felt they had not been well heard by Government, the Government would continue to hear their representations. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston,
636
were correct. British Telecom is providing a valuable new service and providing consumer choice. That is right at the heart of government policy.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful for my noble friend's replies. This is a wide and difficult issue. Will my noble friend be good enough to use his best offices, through the usual channels, to ensure that this difficult and complicated subject will be debated as soon as possible?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if my noble friend wishes to table a Question for debate, I am sure that it will be considered.

Prisons: Overcrowding
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they still accept the principles of the Woolf-Tumim Report (Cm. 1456) following the Strangeways prison riot.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the White Paper Custody, Care and Justice, the Way Ahead for the Prison Service in England and Wales sets out the Government's response to the Woolf proposals. We remain fully committed to the policies in the White Paper.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I sympathise with the position of the noble Earl, who is such an acceptable performer here. He realises no doubt that what he has to say today is in total contradiction of the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whom the Minister appears to be praising in another part of the Answer. How does the noble Earl reconcile the statement he has just made with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, when he said:
"The Government's proposals were shortsighted and irresponsible"?
How can the Minister reconcile that statement with the statement he has just made?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I deeply appreciate receiving the noble Earl's sympathy. It is always welcome, but I am not certain why he was kind enough to express it today. I can assure him that there is no contradiction between the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and his recent suggestions, and what the Government are proposing. The noble Earl has plucked out a quotation and in so doing he has fallen into the trap that many newspapers fall into. Perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough to read the treatise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, as a whole. He will find that what he is saying in his full treatise is rather different from the excerpts which people pluck out of it for their own aims.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the noble arid learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made it clear that his Strangeways inquiry had persuaded him that overcrowding is the most corrosive influence on the prison system and that an overcrowded prison is an unstable

637
prison. If the prison population continues to rise sharply—as the Government seem to wish—and the new prisons referred to by the Home Secretary are still years and years away, how will the Government cope with serious overcrowding, with all that that involves including, I am afraid, the possibility of further serious disturbances?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone would disagree that overcrowding is bad, corrosive and destabilising. That is why we have opened 12 prisons and provided 8,788 extra places since 1991. It is also why we intend to build a further six prisons. The purpose is to try to avoid the very problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, should we not recall that overcrowding in prisons is not simply a function of the length of sentences imposed but of the conviction rate in contested cases? Is it not a fact that since about 1970 the conviction rate in contested cases in England and Wales has fallen from about 70 per cent. to about 40 per cent.?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite right. These are not matters which are capable of easy solution. Nobody has to go to prison if they do not misbehave. Prison ought to be available to remove people from society when they have done particularly bad things in order to protect the ordinary individual. It is not the Government's job to send people to prison. That is the job of the courts. But to make sure that sufficient prison places are available when the courts decide to do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Prison Governors' Association has already drawn attention to its serious anxieties about overcrowding in the prison system? Is he aware that one consequence of overcrowding is likely to be once again sending prisoners to be housed in police cells? Does he accept that there is no point in Ministers saying that they want to have more policemen on the beat if hundreds of police officers are at risk of once again having to act as gaolers because of overcrowding in the prison system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord likes to attack the subject from a different viewpoint. He knows perfectly well that if there are too many people in gaols it may be necessary for prisoners to be housed in police cells. That is highly undesirable and it is something that we always try to avoid. That is why we are endeavouring to provide more prison places. That will continue in order to avoid the problems to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not also the case that a major contribution to overcrowding in prisons is the number of cases in which people are remanded in custody and the length of time those remanded in custody have to remain in custody awaiting their turn at the Crown Court? Will my noble friend ask his right honourable and learned friends to look again at the possibility of more offences being tried summarily
638
rather than going to a jury and thus blocking the courts against the trial of more serious crimes for which suspects are remanded in custody?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the length of time people spend in custody determines and affects the number of people held in the prison system. That is one of the matters to which the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice addressed itself and was requested to address itself, the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. This is one of the reasons for overcrowding. Another is riots such as those which occurred at Strangeways and Wymott, when prisoners themselves deliberately put a number of prison places out of the system.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Council of Europe commission on torture reported recently, after some members of the commission had visited a number of United Kingdom prisons, that conditions in prisons generally in the United Kingdom are among the worst in Europe? How does the noble Earl respond to that comment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we respond by trying to improve our prisons, which has been the case. One of the ways in which conditions have been improved is by contracting out, whereby the contracted out prisons can set a standard to which others can aspire. Before noble Lords opposite say, "Oh ! Oh ! Oh !", I remind them that in prisons which have been contracted out the amount of time spent out of cells is greater, the food is better and standards have been shown to be better. That provides a great incentive for other prisons to improve.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, given the widely held view that it is the threat of imprisonment rather than its imposition that acts as an effective deterrent, can the Minister assure the House that in the impending or future Criminal Justice Bill the Government will repeal Section 5(2) (b) of the ill-fated Criminal Justice Act 1991 and restore to the judiciary their previous discretion to impose suspended sentences? If not, why cannot that assurance be given?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in his keenness to know what is to happen after the Queen's Speech the noble and learned Lord has gone slightly outside the Question on the Order Paper. Of course the point which the noble and learned Lord made will be taken into account, but it would be improper of me to say exactly what is to appear in any Bill which might emerge.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether in addition to the consideration given to the building and the problem of overcrowding the regime in the rebuilt Strangeways prison will also be changed? Does my noble friend agree that the regime at Grendon Underwood is such that there is less recidivism than among prisoners from any other prison in Great Britain? Would it not be wise to review the regime as well as the buildings?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that the regime will be considered. I know the interest of my noble friend Lady Faithfull in Grendon Underwood prison. I

639
can assure my noble friend that having spent in the region of £100 million on the bricks and mortar of Strangeways we want to ensure that the prison works as well as possible. I would only say, particularly to the noble Lord who is concerned about the contracting out of prisons, that when Strangeways was market-tested an in-house bid from the prison system won the award to run the prison.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the prison population in the North West—the area which includes Strangeways—is at present increasing by 500 a month? When the Home Secretary says, as he did at the Conservative Party Conference, that the success of our system of justice will no longer be judged by a fall in the prison population, does that not mean that the Home Secretary and the Government now propose to judge the success of their policies by a rise in the prison population?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord always tries to find simple answers to difficult problems. He knows perfectly well that the real criterion as to whether there should be more people in prison is the amount of crime that is committed. When bad crimes are committed more people are likely to be sent to prison. There is nothing the Government can do. However, there is something that every single person can do, and that is to take steps to avoid crime and ensure that their colleagues, their neighbours, their friends, their brothers and their sisters do the same.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that even though the prison population in the North West is increasing it is not the population of the North West which is filling the prisons? The inmates come from all over the country and not just from the North West of England.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in that the prisons of the North West are becoming full. I am afraid that there will be quite a shift towards the southern part of Britain. The prisons there are less full and the only way to deal with the full prisons in the North West is to shove some of the prison population down to the South. It may be that some of those people who the noble Lord says are in the North when they should be in the South will find that they will soon be in the South.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the policy announced by Mr. Michael Howard, and supported (I am sorry to say) by the Prime Minister, who is even more highly esteemed, is in total contradiction of the policies announced by the past half-dozen Home Secretaries? And they were supported with much eloquence by the noble Earl in this Chamber. That policy is in total contradiction to the views of the judiciary which have been expressed publicly.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I were to be discourteous to the noble Earl—I would not be—I should say that he was talking rubbish. However, I merely say that there is no change of policy. It is only a strengthening of policy. That policy is being strengthened to ensure that those people who commit bad crimes are dealt with properly.

Business
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on managing the modern NHS.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
3.31 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Construction of barrage etc. and other works]:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert:
("() The Development Corporation may riot commence the works specified in subsection (1) above, until and unless the Special Protection Area for the Lower Severn Estuary shall have been submitted, approved arid registered by the European Commission under the provisions of the European Wild Birds Directive of 1979.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. It is important that we should clarify further the question relating to birds and the Cardiff Bay barrage. The points were put clearly and cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, at Committee stage. I do not wish to repeat them. However, I wish to clarify the position in the light of what the Minister then said.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of the relationship to Cardiff Bay of the judgment of the European Court on 2nd August in case C.355/90 EC Commission v. Kingdom of Spain. It is known as the Santona Marshes case. As the noble Lord pointed out, the RSPB believes that the case is relevant to Cardiff Bay. At Committee stage at col. 233 of the Official Report of 13th October, the Minister stated:"So far as can be judged at this stage, the circumstances of the Cardiff Bay are very different from those of the Santona marshes".
However, he explained that although there was not yet available an English language version of the Court's judgment, he was arranging for an English version to be prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In due course it would be placed in the Library and would be available before Report stage.
I have had some difficulty. I have inquired from the Library. It was unable to find the judgment. However, I have just had handed to me in the Chamber the English version prepared, I believe, by the Department of the Environment. I have not had time to study it. I am told that there are two versions, one prepared by the Department of the Environment and one by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and that they are slightly different. I am also told that the covering letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should have been deposited in the Library. The Library was unable to find it. However, I have had a note faxed to me by the RSPB. The document is entitled, "Points arising from case C.355/90: EC Commission v. Kingdom of Spain (the "Santona Marshes" case)". I have had time to consider the document only briefly. However, I note that in the covering note the Foreign and Commonwealth Office states:

641
"The implications for the decision to exclude Cardiff Bay from the possible SPA in the Severn Estuary are not entirely clear. It may be that the margin of discretion in deciding the extent of SPAs has been reduced. Certainly if an area should be classified as an SPA the obligation to take protective measures for the ecology of such areas is said to arise even before designation".
That is an important issue of which your Lordships should take careful note.
Clearly none of us can pronounce with authority on whether the case against Spain is on all fours with Cardiff Bay. We have not had time to consider that factor. Moreover, as a layman I would not feel competent to pronounce on what is essentially a legal question. However, as I believe noble Lords know, a complaint has been made against the Government by the RSPB and other bodies. As I understand it, that is now being considered by the Commission. The Commission has not yet pronounced on it. When the Commission has made up its mind, it will then consider whether or not a reference to the European Court is appropriate. In those circumstances, I shall be interested to know the Government's view of the legal situation and whether they believe it right to proceed with the Bill until that complaint is upheld or rejected. That is an important and fundamental point.
Perhaps I may refer to remarks made by the Minister on the issue at Committee stage. At col. 232 of the Official Report of 13th October he stated:
"We are content to leave it to our statutory advisers, the Countryside Council for Wales, and to the RSPB to advise on the most appropriate measures to be taken".
In fact the Countryside Council for Wales, the RSPB and the JNCC advise that the Cardiff Bay should be included in a Severn Estuary special protection area. Government were not content with that advice and removed Cardiff Bay from the candidate site. To date they have failed to designate the remainder of the Lower Severn Estuary. The Government may be leaving the matter to the CCW and to the RSPB to advise upon, but they do not appear to be taking the advice that they are given.
At col. 233, the Minister also stated:
"of course, we shall do nothing to work against it",
meaning the Community wild birds directive. It is being argued by the RSPB and other conservationists that that is what the Government are doing. At col. 232, of the Official Report, the Minister stated:
"The Government and development corporation take very seriously the provisions relating to developing and conserving flora and fauna at all stages of the works authorised by the Bill".
That statement was welcome. The Government may have taken the provisions seriously, but they appear to have rejected them because the works at Cardiff Bay will not conserve flora and fauna. Effectively they will destroy what exists at present, as the Minister conceded at Committee stage.
Lastly, the Minister said, at col. 232 of Hansard, that:
"the development corporation has already indicated the measures it wishes to take by way of compensation for the birds".
It is true that the RSPB and other conservation bodies have helped to advise on a good design for the proposed new reserve on the Gwent levels, but they have never accepted that those measures are compensation. They have made that clear to everyone concerned. In fact the
642
greater part of the proposed new reserve will provide for birds of a quite different type from those which will be removed from Cardiff Bay—primarily marsh birds, though I know that a small area in the new reserve is now being proposed as an inter-tidal area. That may provide for a small number of the birds. Those are the points that I wish to raise and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about them. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment which has been moved with clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. The amendment raises an issue of great substance, as it involves our treaty obligations with the European Community. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for placing in the Library on Monday a copy of an English Language translation of the Santona Marshes judgment. The copy which I have seen is the copy prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has drawn attention to that judgment; it represents a major milestone. He also drew attention to the fact that the RSPB, supported by other organisations, has lodged a complaint with the Commission that the barrage would be in breach of the directive to which he referred. I am sure that the Government know very well what is the precise position in Brussels at this stage and they probably know that there is a meeting on Thursday of next week of all the representatives of the chefs de cabinet to consider whether the Commission should invoke infringement proceedings.
I wonder whether, in view of that development—if it be correct—the Government propose to press the Bill to a Third Reading on the same day as the meeting takes place. If they do, then the need for this amendment or an undertaking along its lines is extremely important.
When we discussed the amendment and a series of other relevant amendments in Committee, the noble Viscount informed the Committee that the judgment in the Santona case had no implications for Cardiff Bay. At col. 234 of Hansard for 13th October 1993 he said:
"I can confirm that it is our understanding that the case has no bearing on our proposals for Cardiff Bay".
I am sure that that was based on the advice of Welsh Office lawyers. However, a letter written on 12th October to the RSPB by a Welsh Office official, on behalf of the Secretary of State, was more cautious in drawing conclusions. The official said to the RSPB:
"while the RSPB's complaint about the decision to exclude Cardiff Bay from further consideration of the proposal to designate the Lower Severn Estuary as a Special Protection Area remains unresolved in the EC Commission, it would not be appropriate to comment. However, as far as can be judged at this stage the circumstances of Cardiff Bay are different from those of the Santona Marshes".
That is a more cautious approach.
A minute to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred, which I believe was prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and which is attached to a copy of the judgment in the Library, is also very cautious. I should like to quote a few sentences from the minute because I consider that they are relevant:
"The implications for the decision to exclude Cardiff Bay from the possible SPA in the Severn Estuary are not entirely

643
clear. It may be that the margin of discretion in deciding the extent of SPAs has been reduced. Certainly if an area should be classified as an SPA the obligation to take protective measures for the ecology of such areas is said to arise even before designation".
That is part of the complaint of the RSPB. The minute goes on:
"Cardiff Bay and the Santona Marshes can be distinguished in the context of their respective environments and ornithological importance … It is to be noted however that whilst under domestic law there is an extent to which decisions can be distinguished on their facts, in the EC system the principle of precedent is less defined and the European Court tends to adopt a more 'purposive' approach—considering the intention of the legislation to some extent more than its detail".
I should also be interested to know whether the Welsh Office has taken advice from its statutory adviser, the Countryside Council for Wales and also from the joint conservation commission on the significance of the Santona judgment. In fairness to the Select Committee, clearly that judgment was not before the committee when it reported many months ago.
The amendment seeks, quite simply, that the construction of the barrage should not commence until and unless the Commission or the European Court of Justice, if the complaint proceeds to trial, has decided that the construction of the barrage is not in breach of the directive. So I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment or at least give an undertaking that they will abide with its essence.
I should have thought that such an undertaking should not present difficulties to the Government, as it would be fully consistent with the unambiguous, unqualified and considered words uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, in Committee, at cols. 232 to 233, according to the words quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. The noble Viscount said:
"we shall do nothing to work against it".
The "it" is the wild birds directive. We should have thought that an assurance along the lines suggested in the amendment is also the best way to proceed, having regard to our treaty obligations.
If the noble Viscount is not instructed by the Welsh Office to give the House this assurance or an assurance along those lines, will he please ensure that the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be drawn to this discussion before the Bill reaches its Third Reading stage?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I feel tempted to rise on this occasion because I sat on the Select Committee on this Bill in its original form and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill as well as the Humberside estuary Bill. Although I am a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, pay my subscription and very much enjoy its publications and its wild nature reserves, I did not think that the quality of the evidence it gave in any of the commissions was at all satisfactory when it came to predicting the future. The effect of a great deal of international legislation is quite irrelevant to rare species. It deals with common birds such as the dunlin and the redshank, which one finds wading about any marsh in this country in completely satisfactory supply.
644
With regard to the attempt to build an estuary alongside, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill will give rise to a freshwater lake which could be a beautiful asset to the city of Cardiff—a freshwater lake with freshwater birds breeding on it; indeed, an increased population of freshwater birds. Why was that not an object worthy of consideration, as opposed to the diminution in the quantity of saltwater birds? There are plenty of marshes and estuaries in this country for birds to migrate to if they want to over-winter here.
I asked the witness from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on a particular occasion (I believe it was that of the Felixstowe dock and railway Bill) about the meanders in the stream at low tide, dynamic affairs which wriggle like a snake and switch from side to side of the channel, and why the crustaceans that the birds lived on bred on one side of the meander and not on the other. Nobody knew. Nobody had attempted to pick up a ton of mud containing freshwater crustaceans and move them over to the other side of the meander. The money is simply not available for that kind of truly scientific experiment. Therefore I hope that the Minister who answers will stick to his guns and vote against this amendment.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments. I should like to preface my reply to this and other amendments by bringing it to your Lordships' attention that the third week in November will see the celebration of the sixth birthday of this Bill. It has been before two Select Committees, both in this House and in another place. I cannot think of another Bill within living memory which has so been through the scrutiny processes of Parliament.
As to Amendment No. 1, I have made it clear before that the Government believe it is in full compliance with the European Wild Birds Directive. The directive contains no provision for the Commission to approve the designation of special protection areas.
The Government have already taken the decision that Cardiff Bay should not form part of a. lower Severn estuary special protection area. The decision has been the subject of a complaint by the RSPB and others to the European Commission. That is a matter before the Commission, but the Government's position is clear. The reasons for the decision were set out fully in the decision letter dated 1st November 1991, a copy of which is in the Printed Paper Office.
As for the remainder of the lower Severn estuary, its future is not affected by the construction of the barrage. I can see no reason therefore why commencement of construction of the barrage should be made conditional on a decision on that matter.
The RSPB negotiated extensively with the department on its petition before the Select Committee of this House chaired by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. In the end it received sufficient reassurance about the mitigation measures that it considered itself satisfied on all points in its petition. At no stage did the RSPB seek to persuade the Select Committee that commencement of construction should be made conditional on the designation of the lower Severn estuary as an SPA.

645
Of course the RSPB and others would prefer that the barrage were not built at all. But that is the whole purpose of this Bill, and I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Prys-Davies, would agree with that.
I turn now to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on the Santona Marshes judgment. I did indeed place a copy—an English translation prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—in the Library on Monday afternoon. It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has been able to find it. The Library may have had some difficulty; I understand that the cover says simply Commission v. Kingdom of Spain.
Some noble Lords have made reference to the judgment in the Santona Marshes case. I made it clear during our debate last week, that the circumstances of Cardiff Bay are very different from those of the Santona Marshes. In broad terms there are differences in the character of the two areas. The extent of the impact is different and we are providing very extensive compensation measures. As I told the Committee last week, it would not be appropriate to enter into a discussion of particular judgments of the European Court here. Beyond the broad comments that I have just given, I do not propose to go into any further detail, particularly while the RSPB's complaint to the Commission remains unresolved.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to set the record straight about the position of the RSPB. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that I told the Committee:
" … that the Welsh Office was looking to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for advice and that that body was one of its main advisers."—[Official Report, 13/10/93; col. 233.]
The noble Lord then went on to ask whether the Secretary of State had rejected the RSPB's advice on the relevance of the European Court of Justice judgment in the Santona Marshes case. I fear that the noble Lord may have misunderstood what I said in addressing the amendments in his name. I said that the Government were content to leave it to the Countryside Council for Wales, their statutory advisers and to the RSPB to advise on the most appropriate measures for developing and conserving flora and fauna. That is precisely what Clause 2(6) of the Bill requires the development corporation to do. It is also true that the advice of the RSPB has been sought on the development of the proposed bird reserve at Redwick and Goldcliff. They have, after all, considerable experience in the field. They, and the Countryside Council, have provided valuable advice. They remain fully involved in the bird reserve proposal.
However, it is a very different matter to suggest—as I suspect the noble Lord may have implied—that the RSPB are one of the Government's main advisers on the possible implications of the Santona Marshes judgment. That is certainly not the case. The RSPB have merely offered their own view of the judgment and its implications.
Yes, the chefs de cabinet are meeting. But they meet regularly and we do not see any special significance in next week's meeting. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on a point of order, in fairness to the noble Viscount and myself I wish to clarify one point arising out of his reply.
In col. 232 it will be seen that the noble Viscount said:
"We are content to leave it to our statutory advisers"—
Comma—
"the Countryside Council for Wales"—
Comma—
"and to the RSPB to advise on the most appropriate measures to be taken".
When the noble Viscount delivered this sentence on 13th October, I was not to know that a comma had been inserted after the word "Wales". So that explains the discrepancy.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation.
Lord Moran: My Lords, perhaps I may first say a word about the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Halsbury. I fear that I cannot share his complacency about the prospects for wading birds on our estuaries. I am glad that my noble friend has been reading the literature produced by the RSPB. As a result, I am sure that he will know that the RSPB and other conservation bodies are greatly concerned about the threats to so many estuaries which are of great importance in Europe as a passage for wintering wading birds coming down from the Arctic, Canada, Iceland, Greenland, Russia and all over, and moving South in the winter. These birds come in considerable numbers at the moment to Cardiff Bay. Some are relatively numerous, but their numbers have been declining and they are under considerable threat. There should be no question about that.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in his very helpful reply. I believe that it is a little rash of the Government to be determined to go ahead regardless of what may happen in Brussels. None of us knows what line the Commission may take on the complaint that has been submitted to it; whether it will go to the European Court or, in that event, what the court will say. Clearly that may be very relevant to the points that we have been discussing. I should have thought that it would be much more prudent to do as my amendment suggests and wait until we know the answer to those questions before going ahead with the works.
However, I understand that the Government are determined to go ahead. In that event I do not honestly feel that we can stop them. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 2 [Works: supplementary]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 29, after ("operational") insert ("and (in the event of a proposal for a dewatering scheme satisfactory to the Welsh Office being received from the Development Corporation) a dewatering scheme which is agreed by the Welsh Office is in place").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that it was not known at Second Reading on 16th November last year whether dewatering wells to control groundwater levels around the impounded lake

647
were feasible. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, said that dewatering was an innovative procedure and that it was right that a pumping well pilot study should take place to establish the feasibility of a dewatering scheme after the construction of the barrage had been completed. The noble Viscount rightly pointed out in the Second Reading debate that the need for remedial works to properties would be significantly reduced or removed altogether if the results of the pilot study were successful. Indeed, he could have called in aid the old adage that prevention is better than cure.
The pilot studies referred to in the Second Reading debate were undertaken and a week ago the results were conveyed to the Secretary of State. I am glad to see that the results are most encouraging. They demonstrate that a dewatering system will work. Mr. Stoner, the independent specialist groundwater adviser to the Secretary of State, reported to the Secretary of State in the following terms:
"The dewatering pilot study successfully demonstrated that such a scheme"—
in other words, the dewatering scheme—
"will provide a satisfactory means of maintaining pre-barrage water levels in the lower areas of Cardiff under post-barrage conditions … More work is required on the design of the proposed system and any areas that may arise that will need special extra measures should be identified and such measures as may be necessary, defined".
I believe that that is the best news yet to emerge from the Welsh Office in connection with the Cardiff Bay barrage.
The Bill itself does not contain any powers to operate dewatering wells. But, as the Select Committee pointed out—obviously before it knew the results of the pilot studies—in paragraph 36 of its report:
"It is clear that if wells are used, they will become integral to the whole project".
I go along very much with that conclusion.
At Second Reading the noble Viscount said:
"If a decision to proceed [with the installation of dewatering wells] is taken, the Government will not be seeking powers under the Bill to do so. That can be done under existing legislation".—[Official Report, 16/11/92; col. 459.]
Can the Minister tell the House how that will be achieved? If the Welsh Office is satisfied that a design system has been devised and is shown to be workable, this amendment would require the CBDC to implement the agreed dewatering scheme. That is the essence of the amendment.
I am sure that we all wish to achieve that desired end. But if it can be achieved by other legislative means, possibly as suggested by the noble Viscount at Second Reading, I for my part will be content. But I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would take advantage of this amendment to explain to the House the legislative means that the Government have in mind. Were the Government to accept this amendment or give us assurances or an appropriate undertaking today or at Third Reading, I am sure that it would be welcomed by the people of Cardiff as evidence that the Bill will not be as harmful to their interests as some people believe it to be. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that there was a very extensive consideration indeed, during the earlier stages of this Bill, of the
648
effects of groundwater that would result from the barrage. This culminated in a year of further work by Hydrotechnica, followed by a public consultation exercise, and by advice to the Secretary of State from his independent adviser, Mr. Roy Stoner. As a result my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Wales was able to conclude that the barrage could safely proceed, whether or not dewatering proved to be practicable, given the comprehensive safeguards in Schedule 7 of the Bill. That conclusion was endorsed in another place and by this House at earlier stages on this Bill.
The noble Lord will be aware that pumping tests have now indicated that dewatering would work in practice. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has therefore given his approval to the development corporation to produce a detailed design for the scheme for further consideration.
Although dewatering may well prove to be a satisfactory way of controlling groundwater levels after impoundment, it remains the position that we see no reason why the Bill should be made dependent on it. II: may be reassuring to know that the scheme proposed in the dewatering study would involve putting wells into operation before impoundment began, with provision for further wells to be installed if they proved necessary.
The amendment does not in fact provide any further protection to local residents. Under its provisions, if the corporation had not satisfied the Welsh Office with its dewatering scheme, there would be nothing to prevent: the impoundment proceeding without it.
In the light of that explanation and the reassurances I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am a little disappointed by the response. The fault may be mine in that perhaps I did not make the position clear. I welcomed very much the report of Mr. Stoner. I sought assurances from the Minister that the Welsh Office will have access to certain procedures which will ensure that the CBDC introduces the dewatering system if the Welsh Office is satisfied that it is workable. I was relying on the assurances given to the House at Second Reading (col. 459 of Hansard). So I am a little disappointed that the Minister is unable to tell us how the Secretary of State will ensure that the CBDC will implement such a scheme.
We shall have to consider what has been said. I am disappointed—it may be that the Minister has not quite understood the amendment—but at this stage I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Directions as to operation of barrage]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert ("including standards laid down by the European Community Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed when the House was in Committee on 13th October. I am sorry that I did not table the amendment until yesterday, but I was involved in consultations with

649
others until yesterday afternoon. The amendment was discussed in Committee but there remain three points of uncertainty. We believe that those uncertainties should be removed before Parliament enacts the Bill.
First, we want to know whether the Government received clear advice from the National Rivers Authority that the impounded lake should be classified as a sensitive area for the purposes of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. I construed the words of the noble Viscount in Committee to mean that it was indeed advice which had been received from the NRA. Others who have read his words, possibly more carefully, are not sure that the Government acknowledged that they received that advice. There should be no doubt as to what was the advice given by the NRA and the amendment gives an opportunity to the Government to confirm the position.
That brings me to my second point. The noble Viscount told the Committee that it would be for the Government to decide, in the light of the NRA advice, whether or not they would designate the impounded lake as a sensitive area. The NRA is the expert body offering advice; but it is for the Government to decide. That is the point that was made.
We all understand that constitutional doctrine. But we would find it difficult to believe that on this issue the Government would reject the advice of an authoritative body such as the NRA. Is the noble Viscount saying that the Government would seriously challenge the advice of the NRA? We therefore want to establish at this stage and before the Bill is enacted how great is the risk that the Government may reject the NRA's recommendation.
I believe that the Minister went some way to assure the Committee that the advice would not be challenged. I base that comment on what the Minister said at col. 236 when he stated,
"Should the National Rivers Authority seek to designate Cardiff Bay as a candidate for sensitive area status, measures will then be implemented to clean up the discharges that enter the bay".
That is unqualified. But can we divorce that statement from another made by the noble Viscount to the effect that nothing had been decided? I should be grateful therefore if the noble Viscount would clarify the Government's position.
My third point relates to the capital cost of upgrading the three sewage treatment works which are located around 15 miles upstream from the barrage and also of upgrading the 381 combined sewer overflows into the Taff and the Ely. Perhaps he can give us the consequential revenue cost if the impounded lake is classified as a sensitive area. In Committee I specifically pressed for the costs so that the Committee could appreciate the possible effects of passing the Bill. The noble Viscount did not provide the Committee with any costs. The Committee was told,
"As yet we can put no cost on the proposals because the matter does not arise. As and when it does the project will be costed".—[Official Report, 13/12/93; col. 237.]
My noble friend Baroness White and I were not the only people to be astonished by that admission. It has been known for six or seven years that the EC Urban
650
Waste Water Treatment Directive might apply to the impounded lake. Indeed, at Second Reading I asked the Minister whether or not he could tell the House what would be the cost of complying with the directive. It is strongly felt by many people that a responsible course of action on the part of the Government would be to work out how much it would cost in approximate terms if it became necessary to achieve the standards of the EC directive.
Yesterday the noble Viscount was kind enough to send me a copy of a letter which he had sent to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I am bound to say that I did not find it particularly helpful. The letter pointed out that the cost of diverting sewage outflows away from the bay itself would be £14.8 million—that was included in the financial memorandum. In our submission that is a misleading figure in relation to the question which we were pressing on the Minister in Committee. The figure of £14.8 million entirely ignores the costs involved if it became necessary to upgrade the three existing sewage treatment works upstream of the barrage and to improve the 381 sewage outflows into the Taff and Ely rivers.
That is the information that we have been seeking from the Minister since the Second Reading debate last year. I should have thought that there could be no possible grounds for denying the House that information before it decides whether or not to pass the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness White: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies clearly outlined the main difficulties before us, so I do not want to take up too much time at this stage. We are being asked to pass legislation which leaves us with unanswered questions. If one looks at Clause 8, to which the amendment relates, one sees,
"The Development Corporation shall operate the barrage in accordance with any reasonable direction given by the National Rivers Authority".
Who decides what is reasonable? The Welsh Office certainly does not possess the knowledge or capacity to judge.
We are concerned that should conditions arise—nobody can prove it until the barrage has been built—as described by my noble friend, connected with the dangerous nutrients from the three sewage works, it would be much more costly to remedy that situation than to remedy the oxygen situation described in the Bill before us.
I have been even more puzzled by something which appeared in cols. 55 and 56 of the Written Answers in yesterday's Hansard. It is true that it relates primarily to charges. But it is made clear that in various circumstances the Government will expect the environment agency, which is not yet in existence, to take over some of the relevant functions of the National Rivers Authority and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Will that really happen?
There are references also to the fact that the Government are inviting their EC partners to re-examine priorities for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, which is part of the amendment moved by my noble friend. There are uncertainties which we are being asked to accept in good faith. It

651
would be helpful if we could have further reassurance that there will be means by which, should the condition arise in particular with the three sewage works concerned, it will be possible to deal with them adequately when the time arises and that funds will be available for doing so. At the moment we have no assurances whatever on either of those points.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I should like to lend my support to this amendment moved so clearly and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I have a particular interest in sensitive waters because I was a member of your Lordships' environment sub-committee which first considered the European Community Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. We went into it very thoroughly and we were in no doubt about the importance of sensitive waters.
My information is that the NRA has advised the Department of the Environment that the Cardiff Bay impoundment should receive sensitive area status if the barrage is built because it complies, in its judgment, with the criteria for designation outlined in that directive and with the additional guidelines developed by the DoE. I very much share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that since the NRA, which has gone into this very thoroughly and considered the chemical content of the water and all aspects of it with great care, has recommended that the inland bay should receive sensitive area status., it would he very surprising indeed if the Government were to reject that recommendation. I hope very much that they will accept that and that before the end of the year they will have designated the bay as a sensitive area.
The second issue that then arises is the question of whether there is a need for nutrient stripping. If the bay is designated as a sensitive area, the requirements of the directive for nutrient removal will apply to five, not three, sewage works. There is a clause in the directive which allows exemption from nutrient removal. It states:
"Removal of phosphorus and/or nitrogen should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication".
As I understand it, as yet, the NRA has not received any guidance or advice from the Department of the Environment on how an application for exemption status can be made or how one can demonstrate—I draw your Lordships' attention to the word "demonstrate"—that the removal of phosphorus and nitrogen will have no effect on eutrophication. That is extremely important.
I do not believe that the costs are likely to be so great. I believe that the cost of nutrient removal at the five sewage works will not exceed about £1 million. So in terms of the total cost of the project, it is not excessive. If one were to clean up all the outflows into the Taff and Ely all the way up, it would be a very expensive operation indeed. But I do not think that it has yet been demonstrated that that will be necessary, and obviously it would not be sensible to do it unless one really believed that it would have a beneficial effect. I know that the NRA is discussing all these matters with the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and it is wholly in the interests of the development corporation that the
652
water quality should be satisfactory. I hope that these discussions will result in a satisfactory solution. It is essential that, the NRA having recommended that the bay should be a sensitive area, the Government should accept that recommendation.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, when he raised this matter in Committee, no final decision has yet been taken about whether the impounded lake will be designated a sensitive area. I am not sure as to where the noble Lord, Lord Moran, obtained his advice. I am advised that it is on the NRA working document, but as yet no formal decision has been made. However, it is on the current working document. If it remains on that list when it is submitted formally, the Government would have to think very carefully indeed before they chose to disregard the advice of their statutory advisers on water quality. I have to say that I consider it highly unlikely that such a situation would occur.
The provisions of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive are there to be complied with. If it was thought that the Government were failing to comply with provisions of the directive, then the usual remedies before the European Court are available.
Following last week's Committee stage, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. Copies of my letter have been placed in the Library. The directive does not require the removal of nutrients by means of tertiary treatment if it can be shown that removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication. The development corporation's investigations Indicate that it would be possible to remove 80 per cent. of the total phosphorus load at the treatment works. However, the release of retained phosphorus in the bay would mean that the level of algal growth would not be reduced. That is the basis on which the development corporation concludes that tertiary treatment will not be necessary. It is not a case of the development corporation seeking exemption from the requirements of the directive. It will be for the NRA to advise at the appropriate time whether or not the removal of nutrients will be necessary.
Your Lordships are rightly concerned to know what the costs associated with achieving water quality will be. The work which the development corporation knows will have to be undertaken has been costed. The diversion of direct sewer discharges will cost about £14.8 million. This is included in the £37 million identified in the Financial Memorandum on the face of the Bill. Your Lordships are not therefore being asked to pass the Bill without knowing the financial implications.
Despite the fact that the corporation does not expect to have to undertake the removal of nutrients, it has examined the order of magnitude of costs involved if it were required to do so. Based on the evidence of nutrient removal techniques in Germany and Ireland, the development corporation estimates that the capital cost of carrying out such work at the relevant treatment plants would be around the figure indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Moran—between £1 million and £1.5 million. Annual running costs would be of the order of £300,000. But I want to emphasise once again that this is not an official estimate of the costs and it is still too

653
early to reach a firm view on how the implementation of the directive will impact on the inland bay or indeed any other stretch of water. In the circumstances I would hope that the noble Lord would seek the agreement of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to make two points in reply and I shall make them quickly. I believe I heard the noble Viscount confirm that if it is the advice of the NRA that the impounded lake should be given sensitive area status, it is highly unlikely that the Government would reject that advice. I find that reassuring because we do not want to rely on Clause 8(3) (b) of the Bill, which enables the NRA to set objectives for improving water quality, unless there is an understanding with Ministers that the impounded lake will have the status of a sensitive area.
As for the costs, at least we have today exacted some information from the Minister. With the greatest respect, the figure of £14.8 million did not include the cost of upgrading the sewage plants and of improving the 381 outflows. I am grateful for those figures. I shall consult with others and decide whether or not I should bring the issue back before the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Groundwater damage protection]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 32, line 36, after ("building") insert ("and a garden belonging to a building").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment. I shall deal with it as quickly as I can. It is my fault that an amendment relating to gardens was not adequately presented to the Committee. By way of mitigation, I believe that my instructions were not too clear at that stage. I remind your Lordships that under the terms of Schedule 7 to the Bill which sets out the compensation code, groundwater damage suffered by a building or a garden—I emphasise "or a garden"—will be covered by the compensation code in Schedule 7 if they are situated within the district referred to in the Bill as "the protected property area". In addition, a building outside the protected property area but sited within the districts referred to in paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 will also be covered by the remedial or compensation code. But for reasons which clearly seem to have nothing to do with logic, damage to a garden outside the protected area but within the districts in paragraph 5 will not be covered by the code even though the adjoining building will be covered.
Like many others in Cardiff, I am puzzled as to why the Bill should draw this distinction between a garden which is within the protected area and one which is outside it. Indeed, the position seems to be unfair because it is our experience that a garden will often suffer damage, while a building which adjoins it will escape any damage. It is usually the garden which will suffer. It is the first to suffer in the event of flooding or
654
rising water levels because it is at a lower level than the building or because it is on a slope. It does not have the benefit of a damp course.
This amendment seeks to extend the protection to gardens which are outside the protected area. I accept that the amendment is imperfect, but if the essence of it is acceptable to Ministers, I shall be very happy to leave it to them to perfect it. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the protection of gardens is covered under paragraph 18 of Schedule 7. The protection is limited to gardens within the protected property area at the specific request of a Select Committee in another place. It is extremely unlikely that damage to gardens outside the protected property area will occur and inconceivable that such damage would occur without damage to the associated building.
Under the circumstances of the building outside the protected area suffering groundwater damage, under paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 7 the building is treated as if it were a building within the protected property area. In this event the protection to gardens under paragraph 18 would then apply and the garden would be protected.
The essence of the noble Lord's amendment is therefore already addressed in the Bill. Protection to gardens is available outside the protected property area if damage to both the building and associated garden occurs. Perhaps I may refer the House again to the words of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in his report from the Select Committee dated 16th March of this year:
"We are content that gardens and other open lands are now adequately protected by the Bill and the various related agreements".
The Select Committee considered in detail petitions relating to additional protection to gardens. I commend to the House the views of the Select Committee, who have considered these issues in far greater depth than we can do today. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful response. It may well be that I and others who advise me have failed to identify the appropriate paragraph or sub-paragraph in Schedule 7. But in the light of what the Minister has said, we shall obviously have to read the schedule once again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Welsh Language Act,

National Lottery etc. Act.

Managing the New NHS
4.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the management of the health service in England. Our health reforms are now firmly in place and here to stay. From next April, 90 per cent. of acute and community health services will be provided by NHS trusts. Patients are already benefiting from the freedom to innovate and improve which we have given to NHS trusts, to GP fundholders and to local health authorities. By passing responsibility down to local level, we have released the innovation and energies of those working nearest to users of the service. The result has been a fundamental shift of power towards the patient.
"The priority now is to support better patient care through the continued drive towards decentralisation in the NHS. I have concluded that to do this requires changes to the management structures of the health service—structures which are largely unchanged since before the reforms. By streamlining management, we can also make substantial savings in administrative costs. These changes will maximise the proportion of NHS expenditure devoted to direct patient care.
"My proposals for achieving these objectives are set out more fully in a background paper, copies of which are in the Vote Office. They follow the functions and manpower review which I announced to the House in May. I should like to place on record my thanks to Kate. Jenkins and Alan Langlands, who led the review, and to their team, for the work they undertook.
"A guiding principle of the review was that change should support the development of the all-important purchasing function. This function is now the distinctive role of district health authorities. Their job is to build up an accurate picture of what health services local people need and to purchase services which best match those needs. Like GP fundholders, they have the power to change and to improve services. They lead the drive towards better quality care and better health in their areas.
"A key feature of better purchasing is closer working between district and family health service authorities. It makes it easier to take an all-round view, to strike the right balance between hospital and community-based care and to improve public health. These authorities are already working in close partnership in many areas. We wish actively to encourage this. I therefore intend, subject to Parliament's consent, to introduce a power to enable district and family health services authorities to
656
merge. Such mergers will also eliminate duplication and produce savings in overhead costs which can be spent directly on patient care.
"This will build naturally on progress locally. It is clear, however, that as the new system matures, strategic management above that level needs to be better tailored to a decentralised service. We need a lighter touch, geared to developing the potential of purchasing while respecting local freedoms. It must also uphold and strengthen the national accountability of the health service.
"Regional health authorities have served us well for nearly 20 years. I pay tribute to their chairmen, general managers and staff who have led the health service through challenging times. The old hands-on style of the regions is, however, no longer appropriate. I therefore propose to abolish them. I will bring forward legislation to this effect as soon as parliamentary time permits.
"In a national service, accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament, a degree of strategic overview is required. For this reason, I also propose to reform the NHS management executive so that it can more effectively and efficiently discharge those functions which must remain the responsibility of central management.
"The NHSME will remain within the Department of Health but will take on a clearer identity as the headquarters of the National Health Service. It will be accountable, through its chief executive, to the Secretary of State for delivering against clearly defined targets and priorities. It will have precise responsibilities for strategic management and a straightforward structure to ensure cohesion and clarity of purpose. Central management will continue to work with professionals to ensure that high quality clinically and cost-effective practice is identified and systematically implemented and that new health problems are tackled in a coherent way.
"The National Health Service is the largest organisation in Europe. Its size, complexity and importance demand that central management operates through a regional structure. No institution in the world, private or public, would attempt to run such a scale of operation from a single headquarters.
"I will therefore establish, as an integral part of a streamlined management executive, eight small regional offices. Each will be run by a director accountable to the chief executive. A regional structure will enable the NHS management executive to give more effective support to the development of local policies. These policies will provide high quality health services to the standards set by purchasers and the health service professions and will ensure effective co-operation across service, education and research. The regional offices will also replace the existing outposts and inherit their responsibility for monitoring trusts. We wish to build on the light touch approach which the outposts have successfully developed.
"Like the outposts before them, the regional offices must be compact. I intend to set a limit on the total staff budget of each office, commensurate with

657
their functions. A similar limit will be set for the management executive as a whole. The NHS needs strong management; but we must bear down on administrative costs to maximise spending on patients.
"Health authority and trust chairmen have a key role as local leaders. They will be expected to play a prominent role in the new arrangements. We must also ensure a non-executive link between them and Ministers. The NHS policy board will therefore be restructured to include additional non-executive members, each covering one of the eight new regions. These regional policy board members will provide a channel of communication to and from Ministers. They will be respected local figures able to make a powerful contribution to ensuring that national priorities are delivered in their areas.
"In light of the need for primary legislation, we expect the new arrangements to be fully in place by April 1996. We have plans, however, to make immediate progress towards a slimmer organisation. I propose to reduce the number of RHAs from 14 to eight by next April and to align the boundaries of the remaining regions with those of the management executive's new regional structure. This would facilitate a smooth transition to the new system. Change will be managed to ensure that the effective day-to-day operation of patient services is maintained. Management cost disciplines and targets will be met at each stage.
"Ten years ago this Government introduced general management into the health service. The author of those changes, Sir Roy Griffiths, observed then that it,
'cannot be said too often that the National Health Service is about delivering services to people. It is not about organising systems for their own sake'.
That principle, above all, has guided the changes which I have announced today.
"These changes will slim down NHS management. They will make it simpler and sharper. They will clarify its precise roles and responsibilities and ensure that it delivers results measured against explicit targets. They will save money on administration to spend on patients. They will uphold and strengthen accountability. They will continue the process of decentralisation. And they will support the development of high quality, cost-effective health care.
"A better managed health service means better care for patients. These proposals turn the clock forward to more modern and more efficient management, building on the progress of our health reforms. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement of her right honourable friend, but fear that it may be greeted with
658
an exhausted sigh by many of those who work in or are patients of the NHS. The Statement quotes Sir Roy Griffiths saying that the NHS,
"is not about organising systems for their own sake",
but I suspect that that is how it may be viewed by many of those in the health service community who find themselves struggling with the realities of the problems of day-to-day life in the NHS with its expanding waiting lists and new funding crises.
Despite the Statement's confident opening tone about the present confident state of the market, I am sure that many of us who use the health service (as well as many of those who work in it) would echo the statements by the chairman of the joint conference of the medical colleges who this week called for the Government to give priority to curbing the gross inequalities of care that have been created by the GP fundholder system and not to emphasise new management arrangements.
Frankly, our concerns about the market are concerns about uncertainty and my concerns about the Statement are that they will make that uncertainty worse. For the past two years, the regions have been a stable force in what has been the very difficult process of managing change. Although I would certainly welcome any moves which helped to achieve a lean, efficient management of the health service bureaucracy, I have to say that it is somewhat paradoxical that this Statement now speaks of streamlining the management to make substantial savings in administrative costs when we know that 18,000 new jobs have been created at a cost of about £41 billion as a result of the restructuring and reform of the health service. We need to ask how much the new changes will cost. What will be the real benefits to patients in terms of released funds? How many jobs will be lost in the regions in spite of the 18,000 that have recently been created?
One regional function, which many of us have valued, has been that of controlling the strategy for regional specialties in clinical care, such as neurosurgery and certain aspects of renal care. Those regional responsibilities have achieved a degree of equity in the services in those specialties which I suspect may now go the way of equity in general as a result of GP fundholder practices. Who is going to plan and organise those important specialties which have previously been organised at regional level?
These questions relate not only to the strategy of planning services, but also to the accountability of the health service. I refer not only to its accountability to Parliament but also to the financial scrutiny which we all recognise as being very necessary.
The Statement twice refers to taking "a lighter approach", but I have suspicions about a lighter approach. Although I recognise that the intention is to release the energies that have been described in the Statement, I fear that a "lighter approach" may mean a looser approach. There have already been considerable anxieties in the past two years about financial laxity in the organisation of local health authorities and local trusts. I suspect that, although we may want to see a tighter approach, a "lighter approach" is not a useful line to take.

659
I am also concerned about the words used to describe the management executive, which is to become the headquarters of the NHS. Reading the words of the Statement—I have tried to look in more detail at the supporting papers which accompany it—it sounds to me as though the NHSME will become a Next Steps agency. If that is so, it is a very significant change in the organisation of the health service and in its political accountability. It is important at this stage that we understand the principles behind that. If the NHS management executive is to become a Next Steps agency, is that a step on the road towards the privatisation which some of us have suspected?
Another area of concern relates to the additional non-executive members of the NHS policy board. Paragraph 26 of the supporting papers indicates that the eight new non-executive members will have significant powers. They will hold meetings with the chairmen of the health authorities and act as advisers to the Secretary of State, including on—and I think that this is significant—the appointment and reappointment of chairmen and non-executive directors in the regions. The Statement states that those people will be "respected local figures", but I must advise the Minister that there is a certain degree of cynicism among some of us about who those "respected local figures" may be. We must bear in mind the fact that 56 per cent. of the new chairs of the third-wave of new trusts have business backgrounds and that, although that may help them to contribute to some of the financial aspects relating to a trust's efficiency, it does not necessarily reflect a concern about the consumer or equity or any political or philosophical adherence to the health service.
The next point is, who in the new eight small regional offices—the emphasis is put strongly on the fact that they will be small—will scrutinise the DHAs and the trusts? Who will be responsible for their financial probity? My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has given your Lordships' House many examples of problems in relation to that issue. Again, the concern relates to the phrases, "the lighter touch" and "the small regional office". We need detail. We need tightness, and, as I have said before, the lighter touch may not be the right approach.
I should like to mention also the special case of London. Why is it that in this Statement the Government seem to suggest that the London area should, once again, be divided into two? Was the case for a pan-London region considered? That is a topic which I am aware is controversial but which has had a great deal of support. If it was considered, why was it rejected? Two new regional offices for London do not seem to meet some of the problems of the reorganisation of London health care that we have all discussed.
Although I should like to accept that something that improves the regional and management structures of the health service is to be welcomed—I am especially interested in and glad to see that FHSAs and DHAs may be able to merge, although there is a question about which side of the provider-purchaser split they fall—overall, my suspicion is that in the present
660
circumstances these proposals will make the market more unstable and more uncertain, and that the lighter touch may lead to less accountability.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. She offers us another reorganisation. While I understand that there are general phrases setting out the case for it, I should like to understand slightly better than those phrases permit the underlying reasons for bringing in this reorganisation. I should like to ask the Minister: is your reorganisation really necessary? However strong the case for reorganisations may be, there is truth in the principle that all reorganisation leads to disorganisation. I know that after the first Question today I cannot condemn disorganisation, but for that very reason perhaps I am entitled to say that I regret it. If the House will forgive one word, I had forgotten that there were no Prayers; I was by the ticker-tape. I am extremely sorry.
This is not merely a reorganisation. It appears to be, if I have understood it aright, a booster rocket to reorganisation, in two stages: first, a reduction in the number of RHAs, coming in by regulation, followed by their abolition, as soon as space for the necessary Bill can be found in the Queen's speech. I wonder why that two-stage process has been decided upon, because the two changes in immediate succession will surely make it much harder for the new organisation to bed down than would otherwise be the case. There will be at least a year, I should have thought, of reorganisation, as it were, in camp beds.
We are again told about the need for decentralisation. I must touch briefly, and not for the first time, upon the paradox of imposing decentralisation from the centre. That sounds like the famous maxim of forcing men to be free.
The note of concern for savings is of course constant. One understands the problem, but in the invocation of efficiency that goes all through this document, I am left wondering whether efficiency really works efficiently; whether enough account has been taken of the concept of the true cost which cannot be reduced by competition, and which is limited by the fact that one cannot provide a service for less than it costs to supply it. I wonder whether we are getting near to the time when we must look again at the whole management culture of which this notion of efficiency forms a part.
I have some misgivings also about the introduction of a cap for regional offices. When one reaches a cap one finds occasionally that the lack of the money for some trifling thing may cause vast extra expenses arising from its lack. The inability, for example, to replace a broken photocopier may increase costs unnecessarily. So, one needs to ask again: does saving always save money? I do not believe that the answer to that question is yes.
I noticed of course in this morning's newspapers the comments of Sir Michael Atiyah on behalf of the Royal Society about the effects of this organisation on money previously spent on research through RHAs. That is a point which has been made before. The division between ministries works unfortunately here. It is always necessary to repeat that the NHS is not just an organisation for treating patients; it is also an

661
organisation for medical research and the training of doctors. If those three functions become separated too much, none of them is done properly. I hope that the Minister can reassure me somewhat about the effect of this proposal on research.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me also that some account has been taken of the start-up costs which are inherent in any reorganisation and which are certain while the savings are uncertain. I share the doubts expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, about the phrase "a lighter approach". It sounds awfully nice, but what exactly does it mean?
There is a strong case here for more clarity about public involvement; when we discuss accountability, for thinking in terms of local accountability; and, when we consider the boundaries of DHAs, for wondering whether it would save a great deal of muddle if they were to coincide with local authority boundaries. Finally, I ask the Minister whether she can ask her right honourable friend to remember the Foreign Secretary's warnings at Blackpool about the danger of leaving our public services in a state of permanent revolution.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may first reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that this is not another reorganisation. The reforms started at the bottom. Their whole purpose was to devolve power to the local level, to introduce the concept of trust hospitals with local management boards, and GP fund-holders. Health authorities were to purchase health care by assessing local needs and then purchasing the services to meet those needs. That is all now in place. It is working well. But what is happening is that the top of the organisation does not fit in with the bottom.
The noble Baroness will know, as a member of a health authority that is a purchasing authority in central London, that the responsibilities have changed totally. A great deal of the work that those health authorities are doing now, and increasingly so in the future, will be the work that is now being done by RHAs. That is wasteful. That is bureaucratic. It puts into administration more and more money that should be spent on patient care. We want to weed that out. We want a slim organisation that is effective, accountable, and has a direct link between the people who run the hospitals and the community units to the Secretary of State. That is why we need a non-executive in the regional offices to form that link.
This is a lighter touch. I believe that people in the service will welcome that. The last thing that they want is a heavy, bureaucratic organisation that interferes constantly with local decisions. They want to be able to get on with the job. The system that we have designed will enable them to do so.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we need clear public accountability. The document which accompanies the Statement sets that out very clearly and I commend/it to your Lordships. Managing The New NHS sets out a great deal of the thinking behind the reforms and will answer some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, with regard to the
662
boundaries; that is, whether we should have a London region or two regions of south and north London. However, I shall not go into detail because I know that other noble Lords wish to ask questions. The logic is clear and I recommend the document to your Lordships.
5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate the financial consequences of the changes? Can she name a figure for the increase or decrease in public expenditure which is likely to result? I appreciate that it might be difficult, but it is unlikely that any Government will introduce such changes without having an idea of the likely financial outcome, in particular in one of the largest areas of public expenditure.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall disappoint my noble friend to some extent. We have a rough idea but the NHS is a complex organisation employing 1 million people. We are anxious to have their input on the details of the proposals that we have put forward today. Therefore, I cannot give a definite figure as regards the numbers or the money involved. However, I can reassure my noble friend that we are determined that the slimming down of the bureaucracy in the National Health Service will save money, which will go directly into patient care.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Will she take full account of the extremely valid points made by my noble friend Lady Jay? Parliament, and in particular this House, can give excellent service; and I refer to the Statement and the valid points made by my noble friend.
I have been converted to the fact that the NHS should be examined a great deal more. That will be good provided that the reforms are designed to give better patient care. I support that because a large organisation such as the NHS needs constant examination by Parliament. I also believe that we must never forget that the NHS is cast in the noblest mould of any measure that has ever come before our Parliament. It is the pride of our nation and it is the envy of and an example to the rest of mankind.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we need strong accountability. The National Health Service is now subject to independent audit and is further scrutinised by the Audit Commission. We believe that our proposals will not only streamline the service but strengthen accountability.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, perhaps I may strike a different note. Does my noble friend realise the great satisfaction which the changes she has announced will give to many people inside and outside Parliament who are deeply anxious about improving the standards of care, the value for money and the service to patients which we can obtain from the NHS? All experience shows that when in a large organisation one can remove a whole tier of administration and unite the different parts—as the Government have by bringing together the family health services and the district health authorities

663
—immense benefits flow in obtaining better value for money by producing savings in expenditure or, as I hope, more treatment of the right kind out of the total expenditure on the NHS. Today's Statement marks the beginning of an important step forward.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I know that his anxiety has existed for a long time. I believe that the proposals will be warmly welcomed by the majority of people working in the NHS. They certainly should be welcomed by those who use the service because, as my noble friend said, they will mean even more patient care.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many Members on this side of the House are puzzled by her denial of the fact that this is a reorganisation? The management structure is to be reorganised and the number of regional health authorities reduced to eight and eventually abandoned. If that is not a reorganisation I do not know what is. Will the Minister explain that?
Is she further aware that I am surprised that she was unable to say how much money will be saved and how many staff will be made redundant as a result of the reorganisation? I wish to press the Minister on that. I and other noble Lords cannot believe that the Government will undertake reorganisation without knowing the financial effects and the effects on staff. If the Minister cannot give exact figures can she give us some idea?
Finally, can we be assured that the local people whom the Minister will consult about local needs will be chosen from a wide spectrum of the population and not merely from her friends and those of her noble friends in the business and other communities who are members of the Tory Party, with little experience of what is needed in their areas? Can we be assured that the consultation will be wide and that all kinds of people will have an opportunity to give Her Majesty's Government good advice, which they badly need at the moment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I reiterate that this is not a reorganisation; it is evolution. The proposals put into place the final piece of the whole reforms. We have established trust hospitals; indeed, by next year the vast majority of hospitals and community units will have become trusts. The legislation will be passed if that is the will of Parliament. We know that family health service authorities, district health authorities and the populations that they serve, advised by community health councils and other organisations, want that change. GP fundholders are becoming established and their numbers are gathering momentum. That is all happening and that is what was intended. We must now look to the top of the organisation and ensure that it fits in with the rest of our reforms. That involves streamlining, slimming down and creating a more effective organisation at the top. I believe that that is welcomed by the majority of people.
As regards non-executive members, yes, we take wide soundings. I have recently completed an analysis of the number of people who help the National Health
664
Service in the form of chairmen and non-executive members. Noble Lords opposite will be surprised to note the number of people who are involved in that way and who are not paid-up members of the Tory Party. Indeed, we have a prime example sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will the cutting down of the bureaucratic machine, which we all welcome, bring closer together the doctors, the nurses and the administration? As a result of the heavy bureaucratic structure, the doctors and nurses have not been closely in touch with the administration. Will not the reforms make it possible for them to be in touch?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The strength of the National Health Service depends a great deal on team work. The reforms have sought to bring doctors, nurses and managers closer together. In nearly all hospitals we have seen the establishment of clinical directors. Those directors are doctors and nurses who are working closely with managers. The freedoms which the new proposals will bring will enable that to take place in a more effective way.
Lord Howell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the claims in the first part of the Statement are mind boggling? Moreover, to suggest that the National Health Service in its present form now has the support of the whole nation is a statement of complacency the likes of which I have never heard. It is all the more astonishing because it was made on the day when the Secretary of State has told us that she has requested Marks & Spencer to open its shop before nine o'clock because she has been harassed by normal shoppers in the store about the state of the health service for which she is responsible.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Howell: My Lords, it is a question. I would inform the Government Chief Whip on the other side that I intend to continue with my question.
Is the Minister also aware that this very day consultants and doctors representing every hospital and the public in Birmingham have issued a statement about the total disarray of the hospital services in that city? They have done so as a result of the concept of purchasers and providers which seems, these days, to supplant the notion of patients in the health service.
Finally, I turn to the very important point of the democratic control of the health service. To whom are we to depute now when we wish to take up matters of great concern? Who will make such overall judgments, as my noble friend on the Front Bench asked, as to which hospitals will stay open and which will close? It sounds as though the work of those non-executive directors is a very executive role indeed.
I asked to see the chairman of the regional health authority in Birmingham. I went to the National Health Service executive and was referred to a general manager. I complained on the grounds that Members of Parliament and Peers should not be sent to see functionaries; they should be sent to see people who are

665
responsible for the decisions. Can the Minister tell us who will take such decisions and who can we depute to, or write to, in respect of them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the noble Lord's first question concerning Birmingham. Clearly, whenever you bring in changes there are people who resist them and who find them hard to accommodate. However, you only have to look at the progress made in the National Health Service in the past two or three years. We are treating more patients than ever before, our waiting times are decreasing remarkably and we are spending money better. However, we believe that there is still room for improvement and that that will come from a streamlined, clearer accountability which will be introduced through the measures that we are proposing today.
With regard to local issues, when noble Lords or Members of another place wish to find out information about their health services, the people to consult are the health authorities; that is, the purchasers. They are the people who make the decisions as to what services are to be provided and how they are to be acquired. However, if it comes to the running of individual hospitals or units which will become community trusts in the future, then it is up to those who are concerned to consult the chairmen of those boards and non-executive directors. The lines of accountability are very clear. We now have more people involved in local hospitals than ever before. They are people who come from different walks of life and who bring in different skills which are clearly benefiting the services that are being provided.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I should also like to thank my noble friend the Minister for repeating the Statement and to say how much I welcome it. Does my noble friend agree that the proposals for reshaping the regional tier will result in district health authorities having greater scope for developing plans that are finely tuned to the varying needs of the communities that they serve? As the reforms have removed the responsibility of directly managed units from health authorities, they can now concentrate on looking at the real health needs of the population as never before in the life of the National Health Service.
Does my noble friend also agree that the plans to devolve greater responsibility on health authorities for local policy and strategy will make it easier for them to work more closely with local authorities and the independent sector, thus avoiding unnecessary divisions and reducing the risk of gaps, duplication and waste? I should also like to say that I warmly support the proposal for combining DHAs and FHSAs into one authority. As has been said, considerable progress has been made throughout the country towards common boundaries among DHAs, FHSAs and local authorities; indeed, that has happened in many places.
In Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow, the DHA has a common boundary with the FHSA and three local authorities. We have already formed a commissioning agency with the FHSA. As our strategies and plans integrate, it is clear that, operating as two separate
666
statutory authorities, we have much duplication and an increasingly artificial division of our responsibilities. Can my noble friend say what can be done to accomplish the bringing together of the authorities with all speed? Once the decision has been announced, as it has today, the sooner the legislation is in place to allow us to operate as one authority the better.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her comments. As the chairman of one of the district health authorities, she obviously has a very clear vision of how she sees the future. We shall encourage district health authorities and family health service authorities to do just the things that are happening in parts of London by joining together as joint commissioners. We hope that that movement will gain pace and we expect to pass the legislation in April 1996. That is quite a long time to wait. However, it is an evolutionary process and we believe that many people will take the necessary steps so that, if your Lordships decide to pass the legislation, they will be ready to implement it.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to contest a remark made by the Minister in reply to my noble friend. She said that waiting lists were going down. That is not the case in Camden and Islington (my own area) where they have increased considerably over the past year. While discussing the question of London's health service, there is a matter that the Minister has not properly explained. She referred to the accompanying booklet on why London will not have a unified regional health authority. I have read the paragraphs concerned and I am not convinced. I wonder whether the Minister can expand further on the matter? This is a good opportunity to put the special needs of London together under one regional authority.
I should also like to ask the Minister about the proposed merger of FHSAs and DHAs. Up until now, FHSAs have mainly acted in a provider role, looking after the provision of primary health care services. Moreover, through their contracted practitioners, they also have an indirect purchasing role. That is especially so now through fund-holding practices, whether one likes it or not. However, they are in fact a relic of the type of authority which was both purchaser and provider. Is it the intention that the provider element will be part of the merged DHA/FHSA? Further, will GPs not lose the special relationship that they now have with FHSAs as providers of primary health care? The help that they receive from FHSAs is, in the main, greatly appreciated. I can predict with certainty that there will be much discussion on the issue in the months ahead.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to reiterate that, nationally, waiting times are coming down and that in no part of the country are people waiting for over two years now for an operation. That was not the case three years ago. London is a very complex problem. As noble Lords will know, there are many decisions to be made regarding the services in London over the next few months. It was the view of Ministers that we did not want to go for a total London health

667
authority. When one looks at how resources have been allocated in the past, London sucked in a disproportionate amount of resources in order to serve its population. We know that where reallocations have taken place and where redistribution has been successful, it has been because the other areas associated with inner and outer London have ensured that they get a fair share of the money that is available.
If one looks at the coastal areas—South West Thames is a region I know well—regions such as Chichester, Worthing and mid-Downs kept asking us what we intended to do about the over-resourcing of London. That enabled us to ensure that some of those resources were re-allocated. There are some complex problems in London. We believe they are best dealt with by looking to the north of the river for a north London authority and south of the river for a south London authority.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it within order—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, we have taken up the 20 minutes available. The Companion to the Standing Orders states that we should now move on to other business.

Employee Share Ownership
5.21 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they intend to give further encouragement to employee share ownership in general and statutory employee share ownership plans in particular.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I will have no opportunity to speak again at the end of the debate I should like at the outset to thank all those who are to take part and to say in particular how much I am looking forward to hearing the maiden contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
It has for many years been the policy of this Government to seek to increase the numbers of those having a stake in society. The statutory right-to-buy for council tenants, introduced in the 1980 Housing Act by my noble friend Lady Thatcher, brought an additional 1.5 million families into home ownership and raised the proportion of those owning their own homes from somewhat over one half in 1979 to over two-thirds today.
Wider share ownership has also been promoted, with the result that the shareholding proportion of the adult population rose from 7 per cent. in 1979 to 22 per cent. in 1992. Privatisation issues were the main means of bringing this about, the sale of BT alone bringing more than a million investors into shareholding for the first time.
Many steps have also been taken by the Government in recent years to involve employees more closely in the fortunes and ownership of the companies they work for. Indeed, virtually every budget of the past 14 years has contained specific tax reliefs designed to increase employees' financial participation in their firms. The first significant move in that direction took place under
668
the Lib-Lab pact. As a result of the 1978 Budget companies could receive tax relief up to a certain limit on their contributions to profit-sharing schemes set up by them for the benefit of employees, and further relief was made available for individual employees who held their shares beyond a minimum period.
One of the early acts of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon as Chancellor was to make the provisions of the scheme more generous, and successive Chancellors have raised the limits ahead of inflation. My noble and learned friend also introduced save-as-youearn share option schemes under which tax inducements are available for employees who save on a regular basis to buy shares in their companies at a previously agreed price. The number of employees benefiting from both these schemes rose rapidly and by the end of 1992 stood at some 2.9 million receiving shares or share options worth initially some £10.3 billion.
In 1987 my noble friend Lord Lawson introduced profit related pay. Under PRP schemes a part of employees' pay is linked to changes in the profits of their company and a proportion of this pay element is free of tax. The intention was to produce an alignment of interest between employees and the companies they worked for and also to increase pay flexibility. In a recession when profits declined, the argument was that the wage bill would decline, thereby reducing the pressure on companies to lay off labour. How far this second objective has been achieved remains to be fully assessed, although my noble friend Lord Lawson in his memoirs refers to some favourable evidence. In any event, PRP has proved popular. Almost 5,000 profit related pay schemes covering nearly 1.2 million employees have been registered. That is twice what there were barely two years ago.
A rather different type of scheme is the discretionary share option scheme introduced in 1984. The tax advantages under this scheme have been widely used, particularly as a means for firms to attract and hold top executives. By September 1992 the number of discretionary share option schemes which had received Inland Revenue approval was over 5,000.
Finally I come to ESOPs—employee share ownership plans. I refer to statutory ESOPs to distinguish them from so-called case law ESOPs. Case law ESOPs result from the initiative of businessmen making use of UK trust law for the benefit of their employees. Their tax status has been a constant matter of dispute in the courts and it was partly to put the ESOP advantages on to a more satisfactory basis that my noble friend Lord Lawson introduced statutory ESOPs in 1989. They were improved in 1990 by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, then Chancellor. who described ESOPs as being,
"an attractive option which deserve further encouragement".
They were improved again the next year by my right honourable friend Norman Lamont.
Under statutory ESOP legislation a company may set up a trust whose function is to buy or otherwise receive shares in that company, borrowing to do so if necessary, before passing them on to employees to hold individually.
ESOPs today enjoy three specific tax advantages. Sellers of shares to the trust enjoy roll-over relief from capital gains tax; the company enjoys tax relief on payments made to the trust to enable borrowings to be serviced and repaid; and the company is entitled to tax relief on the costs involved in setting up ESOPs in the first place. To acquire entitlement to these tax reliefs, a statutory ESOP must satisfy a number of conditions. Shares must be passed on to individual shareholders, not held collectively, and this must be done within seven years of the shares being acquired by the trust; shares must be offered to all employees and on similar terms; and a majority of the trust's trustees must be selected by the employees. Unfortunately the first and the third of these restrictions which were invented to prevent abuse have served to prevent virtually any use being made of the legislation—and that is quite contrary to the Government's intention.
The fillip which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the time believed would follow for ESOPs from his introduction of roll-over relief has not materialised. I wish to explain why I think this is so. One of the important potentials of ESOPs is to enable substantial transfers of shares to be made to employees by large individual shareholders in privately owned companies. Let me say here that it is evident from what my noble friend Lord Lawson said when he first introduced ESOPs that he particularly had in mind privately owned companies as an area where ESOPs could flourish. A typical situation is one where an owner, perhaps the founder of a successful private company, is faced with the problem of his own succession and is anxious to preserve the independence of the company. To sell his shares, probably at a favourable price, to a trust established for the benefit of the employees, can be for him an attractive option. However, he will be deterred from, and even advised against, doing so on account of two of the restrictions I mentioned.
The present requirement that a majority of the trustees should be employee-selected gives rise to a fear that such a body might accept an external offer for the company as a whole—one which will cost the company its independence—an offer less likely to be acceptable to a board where independent trustees hold the balance. Further, no vendor is likely to opt for a disposal where the danger exists that substantial tax benefits may be reclaimed from him seven years later as a result of developments over which he would have no control. That is the effect of the requirement that all shares must be passed on by the trust to individual employees within seven years.
The perverse situation now rules whereby such a vendor would be advised instead to sell to an external buyer in exchange for shares, roll-over relief being available in such a case and not liable to clawback, thereby bringing about the very loss of independence which he wishes to preserve. The result is that, while case law ESOPs have flourished, statutory ESOPs alone among the measures introduced to encourage employee share ownership over the past 14 years, and despite the attentions of three successive Chancellors, have
670
remained earthbound. Yet statutory ESOPs are the one means which offer the possibility of really substantial transfers of shares to employees being made and therefore of providing a significant boost to employee share ownership as a whole.
I very much hope that the Government will remedy those defects in legislation. I know that the Treasury has been in discussion with Job Ownership Limited, the body probably most concerned with this issue and of which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is a director, as is my honourable friend Ian Taylor in another place, himself a tireless advocate of employee share ownership. Job Ownership has acquired a considerable reputation under the admirable leadership of Robert Oakshott, who is also known to other noble Lords. I hope very much that its concerns and my concern can be met.
The spread of employee share ownership would also be given a boost were the Government to bring forward at last their proposals on partnership companies and on Table G of Section 128 of the Companies Act 1989. I understand that the Government have now given an undertaking to do that, and I look forward to hearing confirmation of that when my noble friend the Minister replies.
There is another reason to believe in a future for statutory ESOPs aside from the continued proliferation of case law ESOPs and the rapid growth of all the other schemes which have been introduced to encourage employee share ownership, provided the right fiscal framework can be found. That is found in the American experience.
ESOP legislation originated in the United States, the first tax reliefs being introduced there in 1974. Thereafter, employee share ownership burgeoned in a most dramatic fashion. There have been hundreds of cases each year in which the principal shareholder—the private company—has made use of ESOP legislation to solve a problem of ownership succession. ESOPs are used in the United States in other situations also. For example, in the US steel industry they have played an important role in enabling a large number of companies to weather the crisis in that industry.
ESOP legislation in the United States is in many ways similar to that in this country. In some respects it is less generous. A vendor to an ESOP trust in the United States must own 30 per cent. of the stock of the company before he qualifies for roll-over relief. In the United Kingdom the threshold is set at 10 per cent. The vital difference lies in the presence in United Kingdom legislation, and the absence in the United States legislation, of the restrictions which I have described. The result is that, whereas the number of ESOPs in this country can be counted on the fingers of two hands, in the United States there are estimated to be over 7,000 ESOPs covering today some 7 million employees. In this country no more than 30 companies are fully or majority employee owned compared with an estimated 1,000 to 1,500 in the United States. Of those, the largest single category is private companies, in particular family companies. I see no reason why we should not

671
see the same development here given similar encouragement. That means remedying the defects in current legislation.
That represents the minimum, not the sum, of what the Government should do if they still wish to see advances in employee share ownership. Today the focus is on the Treasury. The remedy lies in Treasury hands. My noble friend Lord Henley, in his capacity as Treasury spokesman, is replying to this debate. In the longer term it should be a matter for the Department of Employment to take up. I should like to see that department show a more positive and involved attitude to the subject than I believe it has shown to date. As my noble friend Lord Henley now happens also to be the Minister at that department (and I congratulate him on his appointment) I am particularly pleased that he will be able to hear why I believe that it is important that his department should take up this cause.
The closer involvement of employees in their companies improves their motivation and therefore tends to improve companies' performance. It is not for nothing that many well-run large companies—from BASS to Royal Insurance to Sainsbury—have set up their own all-employee share ownership schemes. Employee share ownership induces more realistic attitudes to pay. The instances of employee owners having forgone a wage increase or accepted a wage reduction to save the life of their company and their own jobs are too numerous to mention. The result is that there is less wage-inflationary pressure in the economy. That is the economic advantage of employee share ownership.
I believe that the reasons for supporting employee share ownership stretch further. I am certain that the Government remain committed to the goal of a share-owning democracy. The scope for progress in that direction remains considerable. Despite privatisation sales, the proportion of equity in the hands of individuals as opposed to institutions is less than it was 12 years ago. The trend which my noble and learned friend Lord Howe vowed to reverse in his Budget Statement 10 years ago has not in practice been reversed. Privatisation sales must now be approaching the end of the road. Other means of promoting the policy must be sought. Is not employee share ownership one of the obvious ways in which the Government could procure a serious advance in wider share ownership?
I believe that there is also another reason for the Government seriously to consider giving a major boost to employee share ownership at the present time. The Government took the controversial, but I believe justified, decision to opt out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. I agreed with the Government that the Social Chapter represented a type of thinking that was unsuited to the times, even for the rest of Europe but particularly for this country which had recently but all too painfully thrown off the shackles of over-mighty trade unions and where decentralised, flexible and non-corporatist methods of consultation were becoming the norm and should be preserved.
Does not employee share ownership offer an alternative to the socialist vision of M. Delors, one which this Government could embrace, which renders
672
unnecessary statutory representation on boards by workers, which bypasses trade union representation and which emphasises individual rights and secures the individual involvement of employees in the ownership and management of their companies? Is that not a suitable vision for a Conservative Government to put forward? Is it enough for the Government to be purely negative in the councils of the Community so far as concerns social policy? What other vision do they have?
I believe that employee share ownership, created out of the new wealth generated by an expanding economy, could be a major development in the future of capitalism, one which improves its functioning and yet which also serves to render less harsh the inequalities which result from competition, that competition which nonetheless we cannot dispense with, as the last decade has also taught us. Noble Lords opposite will not agree, but I believe that the Conservative Party, with its belief in capitalism, its support for individual freedom and its commitment to a share-owning democracy, is its natural champion. Indeed, the Conservative Government have already shown admirable consistency over the past 14 years in the support they have given employee share ownership. I say now that it is time for that support to be renewed and indeed reinforced. I hope that when he replies my noble friend the Minister will be able to show that he agrees with me.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, although it is only 10 days since I was introduced to your Lordships' House, your warm and friendly welcome has given me sufficient courage to address your Lordships for the first time. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for giving me the opportunity to do so in this important Unstarred Question.
My confidence also springs from my personal experience in the matter your Lordships are discussing. That experience has been gained during 30 years of work in the textile manufacturing industry, at all levels: as a technologist, as a manager and as chairman of an international company. In addition, as a founder member, secretary and latterly chairman of the Labour Finance and Industry Group, I have been able to share experiences and gain insights from other people engaged in different sectors of business and industry.
During those 30 years, because of worldwide competition, I have seen the pressures increase enormously on people working in the textile industry and indeed in the whole of manufacturing industry. In my company we used to have four weeks between receiving an order and delivering it; today we have four days. Faults in quality were previously expected and tolerated; today our customers expect perfection. Innovation was leisurely and haphazard. Today it has to be quick and constant. With all those demands, our industry has to produce extraordinary results with ordinary people. Industry will succeed in doing that only by harnessing the skills, energy and enthusiasm of all employees. That is a key factor in our nation's wealth.
In my industry the best firms rise to that challenge in three ways: training to supply the skills; investment to provide the tools; and participation to provide the

673
motivation, enthusiasm and dedication. It is in that final element where employee share ownership plans play their part. I have no doubt that employee share ownership plans work in harnessing the enthusiasm of employees. But they must be introduced with care. First, the plan must apply equally at all levels of the company, not just to managers. Secondly, there has to be a way that employees can at some stage sell their shares, otherwise they become handcuffs inhibiting employees joining and leaving the company and, perhaps, encouraging the sale of the business.
In the textile industry there have been various share ownership and profit sharing schemes for over 100 years. But they have never been wholly satisfactory. Indeed, it was because of the resistance to change and lack of mobility inherent in some of the schemes that eventually some firms went out of business. The more successful plans in the industry have been introduced as part of an overall company culture. That is because employee share ownership has a subtle effect on the relationship between directors and their employees. As shareholders, employees participate in appointing the directors and so judge their performance differently from when they perceive them purely as their boss.
The relationship between the directors and employees can come under strain when employees ask for more financial information than the directors think is good for them, especially in smaller private companies. Employee shareholders have been known to upset the cosy relationship between the directors and the auditors. In my experience, employee share ownership works when the changed relationship leads to an open, frank and trusting management style. It could well be that it is that management style, added to the incentive of share ownership, which creates the enthusiasm and involvement which the managers seek.
Employee share ownership plans can work and are a good idea. However, like all good ideas they can be spoilt by abuse. That abuse is sometimes found in executive share option schemes which are introduced under the guise of employee share ownership. They can be legitimate, such as in the case of a company in trouble which can only afford to attract an executive capable of rescuing the business by offering a generous share option. But in too many cases options are used to entice new senior executives into companies by giving them a riskless one-way bet complete with substantial tax advantages. There are other abuses, for example, when company executives reward each other with share options purely to take advantage of the tax allowances available—a kind of tax efficient carrot without a stick. Without careful regulation, those abuses will bring the whole idea of employee share ownership plans into disrepute. Sadly, recent privatisations have been among the worst offenders.
The timing and spirit of this Unstarred Question suggests that it is part of a series of representations to the Chancellor prior to the November Budget. It is not my intention to make any special representation. My purpose is to state that I am in favour of those plans, provided that they are for all employees, are strictly regulated to avoid abuse and are incorporated in an open
674
management culture. If I were to make a special plea to the Chancellor, it would be to help to restore and enhance the stature of manufacturing industry which I believe must be our main aim in the 1990s.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will wish me to thank and congratulate the noble Lord on his outstandingly good maiden speech. I hope that he will continue to speak to us on this important subject and related matters in the future. I have a number of close associations with him. If I am correctly informed about his higher educational background, like him I had a scientific/technological education. He became a professional textile technologist; I became professionally a metallurgist. I do not know whether he would be happy to be questioned about textile technology today; I certainly would not wish to be questioned too deeply about metallurgical matters. However, that is an unusual background in the political world. I do not know whether my noble friend Lady Thatcher realises it, but we have at least one thing in common: we both took science degrees at university.
I share too with the noble Lord experience of different levels in industry before I entered Parliament. Finally, I share with him the fact that I made my maiden speech in another place on joint consultation in industry. Even in those days, to my mind employee share ownership was closely bound up with that subject. I have stated that I made my speech "in another place". In parliamentary terms, I did so, but as at that time (and it was 43 years ago) another place was physically recovering from being destroyed in the war, I in fact made that speech from these red Benches. I have therefore much in common with the noble Lord. I wish him a long, happy and active life in your Lordships' House.
I thank my noble friend Lord Reay for raising the subject today. I support him strongly in what he said to the Government about the need to give the development of employee share-ownership a strong, new push forward. There is no need for me to reiterate the list of actions which the noble Lord gave about what has been done by a succession of Conservative Governments to promote the increase of employee share ownership. It is a good record. However, I too believe that some of the Government's latest measures have become stuck. It is urgent that they now become unstuck.
I therefore strongly support my noble friend, for example, about the need to give a new push forward to statutory employee share ownership plans (ESOPs). There is little doubt that in the current climate those plans could be a potent means of extending employee share ownership. It is ridiculous—or so it seems to me—that they should be stymied or stillborn by the red tape with which the Treasury has bound up the plan. I cannot believe that the potential losses to the Treasury from relaxing the two restrictions which my noble friend Lord Reay mentioned are worth considering. They are small in the counterbalance of what would be achieved if we could give a big push forward to the development of statutory ESOPs in this country, as we

675
have seen happen in the United States, as my noble friend said. So I beg the Government to look at the suggestion most seriously and constructively.
Having once been both junior Minister in the Department of Employment and Secretary of State for Employment, I wish that I too could have been a Treasury Minister. I hope for great things from my noble friend Lord Henley and that he will bring to the Treasury the common sense and constructive ideas typical of the Department of Employment, but, in my view, not always to be found in the Treasury. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter would not agree with those liberal statements. Anyhow, I hope that the matter will be taken seriously.
There are two other areas which I wish to mention where I feel that the development of employee share ownership is getting stuck. One is in the management-led employee buy-outs of local transport companies. Here, the situation has been distinctly made less favourable by measures taken by the Government since the last general election. Up to that time they were progressing quite fast, but since the last general election a new condition has been introduced whereby none of the schemes can go forward unless it is put out to competitive tender. That I understand to be a measure to protect the value of public assets. Perhaps I ought not to be opposed in principle, but it is important that a real advantage should be given to management buy-outs, as long as they are soundly based, in competition with open buy-outs. Otherwise, the Government's own policy for local transport can easily be defeated. If the local companies are gradually absorbed into big companies, we shall find ourselves, 10 years from now, back in as nearly a monopolistic situation as we have recently been in.
Thus I believe that it is in the Government's own economic and financial interests to do what they can to encourage the revival of the management-led employee buy-out schemes of local transport which were going forward fast prior to the general election, as I understand it, but have been slowed down since by the new condition. The Government should look carefully at whether the small advantage which I believe is still granted to buy-out schemes should be increased if the schemes are to go forward, to the greater good of the whole idea behind the proposals.
The third area which I wish to mention is a matter which was introduced in the Companies Act 1989 and which proposed that a new form of corporate entity called a partnership company should be introduced and should be made possible by means of secondary legislation. I believe that there was to be a new Table G to the Companies Act. That was the situation four years ago and there is still no new Table G. I do not wish to make too crude a pun, but it is time that this was "geed up". It is absurd that this has gone on for four years while lawyers have been quibbling about how they interpret the amendment which the Government themselves wish to introduce into the Bill, in order to make it easier.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Onslow at that time—and he will have something to say about this so I shall not steal his thunder—agreed to withdraw his
676
amendment to allow the Government's wording to be introduced in order to make it easier. Instead, it seems to have made it more difficult and something must be done.
I strongly support my noble friend Lord Reay's plea that the Government should look at all that they have been doing to promote the share ownership schemes and should carefully pick out for attention the three areas which we have mentioned where their efforts are being frustrated by their own, in my view misguided, detailed policies. The broad policies are right, but the way in which they are being applied in a detailed manner seems to me to be causing obstruction rather than being helpful. I hope that this debate will help to bring that about. Again, I thank my noble friend Lord Reay for raising the subject today.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I think that your Lordships' House and those who are concerned outside with the working of the British economy are much indebted to my noble friend Lord Reay for raising this matter this evening. If I may say so, he has shown considerable adroitness in the timing inasmuch as he introduces it during quite obviously the period in which Her Majesty's Government and the Treasury are considering the Budget and the Finance Bill. Timing in politics is one of the most important matters and my noble friend's timing seems to be quite perfect.
If I may pick up what my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said, it is a matter for the Treasury. That is a good thing, because while I have the highest regard for the department in which he served, I think that most people who seriously study the working of government know that the Treasury is the central machine of government. I am not talking of Ministers, but at the official level where it holds the cream of the Civil Service. It is a good thing that this important matter should be considered by that department.
Risking a rebuke, I should like warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on his most interesting maiden speech. It had the enormous advantage of his practical experience behind it which he deployed so interestingly and impressively. I am sure that his contribution has added considerably to the impact of the debate.
I wish to make only one point of substance on the issue. It is that employee shareholding is socially, economically and financially an extremely important activity. It is one which, I am afraid, has in recent years made rather disappointing progress. Employee shareholding means that those who work in an enterprise have a direct financial interest in the success of that enterprise. It is in that respect the very converse of a nationalised industry, where those who work in the industry know that their prospects and earnings are utterly unaffected by the success or failure of the industry. With employee shareholding, they have a direct and visible contact with the earnings of the company. That seems to me of enormous importance. In large measure it prevents disputes between capital and labour, between employer and employee, which do so

677
much harm and cause so much delay from time to time in various enterprises. Everyone is on the same side and that is an enormous asset.
Therefore, I suggest that it is up to Her Majesty's Government to show their full appreciation of that by the steps they take, I hope in the next few weeks, because the employee shareholding movement has not gone as fast or as far as most of us would wish. As my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said, it is no doubt because of the various rather rigid restrictions which are imposed in a rather short-sighted view of the possible expenditure involved.
I hope that, although my noble friend Lord Henley cannot anticipate the Budget Statement—or he would cease very quickly to be on that Bench—he will be able in his usual tactful way to indicate the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government with the development of employee shareholding and give some indication that they realise its great importance and the desirability of taking action on it. In any event, I am quite sure that this debate has served a most useful purpose in making clear from both sides of the House how important those of us who have had any industrial experience know employee shareholding to be. I hope that we shall get an encouraging reply from the Government.
6 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I too should like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on introducing this debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord on his speech, which dealt most admirably with both the wider issues and the particular points which are, as has been pointed out, of some immediate importance in view of what the Chancellor is leading up to in regard to the present legislation.
I feel some sympathy with the Chancellor over insisting that a majority of the trustees should be elected by their workers under an ESOP, and also that they should eventually take the shares into their own hands. But as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has pointed out, this has proved a serious, almost fatal, defect in the Bill. I therefore hope that the Chancellor will drop it.
In general, one of the troubles in trusting the Treasury—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as an old Treasury hand quite rightly pointed out, is a most splendid institution—is that the British appear to look under every carpet to see what mousetraps there may be and to find the possible loopholes for evading taxation.
Taxation is always being evaded. I fear that if now the limited liability rules were brought into effect, the Treasury would find some objection to them. The Treasury is quite right to raise objections and to maintain the honesty of the tax system. But it must also realise that it must move forward and risks must be taken.
Like other noble Lords, I too was deeply impressed by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I too should like to join in congratulating him. Two particular points struck me. First, the noble Lord emphasised the different atmosphere in companies in which the employees have a substantial say. He also attacked the share options given to directors—which
678
appear to me to be one of the lesser scandals, (but nevertheless a serious scandal) in relation to the general scandal of ever rising directors' pay, regardless of whether companies do well or badly, and quite regardless of whether it is inflationary. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord came out against that.
If it is said that there have been rather small advances in certain directions, as over ESOPs, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was quite right in saying that in general there have been very considerable advances in workers becoming shareholders. We can point to the success of such undertakings as John Lewis and Baxendale in the whole campaign which we are conducting.
I do not want to reiterate what has been said about the technical possibilities, tax concessions and so forth, for encouraging shareholding among the workers. Nor do I want to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said about the general desirability of such moves. But I want to stress two points.
First, it is absolutely essential in this country to spread wealth. It is deplorable that the poor, as I understand it, are in real terms 14 per cent. poorer than they were, while in the meantime the rich have become richer. If we are to have a decent and satisfactory country, whatever our Party, it is essential that the gap between rich and poor should not grow. One way of tackling that (only one way, admittedly) is through wider share ownership, and particularly the ownership of businesses by those who work in them.
My second point is that we are watching an immense change in the balance of power between capital and labour. In the old days mass labour, organised through its unions, could exercise very considerable influence. But now the way to get on in the world is to have some access to capital, or to own capital. We have seen the decline in the power of the trades unions partly as a result. Again I say that it is essential, if this is the modern tendency, that the nation as a whole should have a share in the capital it possesses and that capital should not be confined to a small elite. This permeates everything, not only businesses but also the social services, in which the clients are so clearly distinguished from those who actually dish the money out. Therefore I hope that employee participation will also be considered possible in the running of the social services. Otherwise, we shall have a highly divisive country, and to my mind an extremely inefficient one.
I come to my last point. The American economist, Weitzman, has pointed out that there may be great overall economies in rewarding labour through profit and not solely through wages. Whether he is accepted by Congress I do not know, but I find his arguments rather persuasive. I have also found, looking round, that however much we may believe in the private enterprise system of competition—and I certainly do—it has hardly turned out to be as satisfactory as we hoped it would. State socialism may be very unpopular at the moment, but it will certainly rear its ugly head again unless we are careful, and the capitalist system gives some better reward to the majority of people in this country, among whom, most prominently, are the unemployed. Unless we can find some way of bringing

679
them in to the general advance in prosperity, to my mind we shall see a return to state socialism, which I would much regret.
Therefore I beg the Government not only to remove the present drawbacks to employee ownership, not only to implement Table G (so admirably moved in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow) but to go forward and, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, suggested, aim at a situation in which at least a high proportion, if not an absolute majority, of the nation receives benefit, either through shares or through some equivalent ownership of capital, and people are not merely either turned into dependants upon the social services or are among the unskilled workers. For my part, I do not see the present system ever absorbing the unemployed. It has to cater for them, and introduce new ideas, even if it runs some risks arid possibly forgoes some efficiency in that process.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in this matter. Like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who made such an excellent speech, I have a particular interest in employee share ownership, not least from practical experience. Like the noble Lord, I know that the whole concept works greatly to the benefit of the employee, the company, and thus no doubt to the nation at large. It is excellent that the Government have done so much to encourage wider employee share ownership. I very much hope that this debate will accelerate that process.
It may interest noble Lords to know that for 15 years I was either chairman or president of the Industrial Participation Association, a society which for over 100 years has advanced the cause of wider share ownership and the sense of common purpose that such ownership engenders—greatly, I believe, to the public good.
I was also fortunate enough to be able to build up a business from scratch. At the point at which we were employing about 1,000 people, I took the company public. That gave me the opportunity to practise what I had preached, and to give 10 per cent. of the shareholding of that company to the employees proportionate to their length of service and seniority. Without going into that matter too deeply, I should like to say that I think that I have seldom been more moved than when walking round the works about a week afterwards one elderly employee came up to me and said, "Guv'nor, you don't know what it means to me to feel I own a bit of this company." When one sees the effect that ownership has on job satisfaction, work satisfaction and indeed on life satisfaction, one does not need any convincing of the importance of engendering wider share ownership throughout the community for all the excellent reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has just given.
I do not for one moment suggest that all employees are motivated to the degree of that lovely woman. But my experience tells me that many are and in a wholly beneficial way. Fortunately, too, my entirely subjective observation in this matter is borne out by extensive research—particularly in the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, mentioned—which shows that
680
employee share ownership based companies have consistently higher productivity, higher profitability and better growth. That must be something which we all want to see.
There are plenty of cynics about to denigrate the concept. We have all heard the expressions "Well, employees always would grab a freebie, wouldn't they?" or "They will sell them as soon as they can". The fact remains that although some employees may take advantage of that kind of situation and prematurely sell their shares, the majority of employees do not and many of them hold on to their shares for many years. That alone is a positive benefit. It should be considered in relation to the problems of short-termism and the goal of broadening the property ownership base of this country which is so important.
I realise that the Government clearly recognise the benefits of ESOP schemes, but it is, particularly ludicrous that many of the useful steps that they have taken to promote their introduction are, not for the first time, frustrated by minor legalities which were not envisaged when the wording of the legislation was drafted. It is ridiculous that those worthwhile schemes are held up by matters which could be so easily overcome—such as the modification to the seven-year rule and the simple declaration as to what constitutes a significant number. In that respect I suggest that a figure of 30 per cent. would be a perfectly sensible working figure that would break the current legalistic log jam. I echo the words of others in saying that the Government must take steps urgently to remove the legal entanglements which are strangling at birth the emergence of such schemes.
Meanwhile, we all try to put an optimistic gloss on the economic position of this country. But the fact is that we have a howling balance of payments deficit such as no nation can sustain for long. Fortunately, now that our currency is at an appropriate exchange rate level, we are in a unique position to trade ourselves out of the problem. Many people argue that we do not have the supply side capacity. But it is surprising what capacity can be squeezed out of existing investments, if one harnesses the ingenuity and inherent skills with which we are so well blessed in this country. To accelerate personal endeavour and commitment we need to induce a greater sense of joint endeavour throughout the workforce. I do not say that it will have immediate effect, but overall the introduction of such schemes and wider share ownership generally induce such a feeling of joint endeavour. Whatever the critics may say, people like to belong and feel that they are part of an organisation; and they rightly like to reap some benefit from it, not just in their weekly pay packets but over the longer term. Indeed, the longer term is a concept that we need to encourage in all walks of life, not only in government but in shareholding as well.
The concept of employee share ownership precisely meets those needs and helps to fulfil them. I hope that the Government will be able to give the House an assurance that they will look again at this matter with a view to removing at an early date the obstacles that prevent its wider implementation. If they do so, I am

681
sure that we shall be doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for raising this matter again at such a timely moment.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I must first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on what he had to say. There was hardly anything with which we could not all agree. I am awfully cross that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has had to bring up this matter at all. He should not have had to do so.
This has been government policy. With regard to the famous new Table G in the Companies Act, in 1989 I moved an amendment to which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde agreed. I thought to myself that it was magic that there was something which I had agreed with my own Front Bench, and it had been arranged that it would go forward. But, no, the wording that I originally put forward was "majority shares" whereas the government amendment said "to a substantial extent".
The wording "to a substantial extent" obviously produced among the Treasury lawyers a mood which could only be described as like that of the argument between the arian bishops, the catholic bishops and the monophysite bishops at the Council of Nicaea. It is a marvellous argument over the nature and substance of shareholding. It is government policy. We all know that it ought to be done. No doubt we all know that according to Locke, property is the basis of human liberty. We all want to diffuse property ownership to the maximum number of people possible, so that they all have a stake in society. The greater the stake in society that people have, the more liberty there is, the more social cohesion there is and the more general wealth is created because of the motivation mentioned by my noble friend Lord Vinson.
It is irritating that one has to come back on something which is policy and which has been agreed. It is something which everybody agrees is a good thing but nothing has happened about it. Thank goodness my noble friend Lord Reay has brought up this matter. I sincerely hope that he never has to bring it up again, because my noble friend on the Front Bench will make sure that government policy is carried out and not forgotten.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, everyone who has spoken has welcomed the request for information from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, as to how the Government intend to give further encouragement to employee share ownership. I am delighted to do the same. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, is particularly to be congratulated on the timing of his Question, coming as it does only a few weeks before the Chancellor is to make his Budget Statement at the end of next month. For obvious reasons the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will be limited in his remarks in reply, but at least we have been given the opportunity to express our views on this important subject. I shall have a little to say about statutory employee share ownership plans
682
in particular, but I hope I shall be forgiven if, for the most part, I deal with the broader matters raised by the Question.
Ever since publication of the Liberal Yellow Book in 1928, democratisation of the structure of industry has been a major theme in my party's policy. The most significant political advance in encouraging employee share ownership, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, was gracious enough to acknowledge, came from our initiative during the Lib-Lab Pact when the 1978 Finance Act introduced tax relief for approved schemes. Recent studies in the UK have shown that the benefits of employee share ownership can be substantial. For example, in one survey profit-sharing companies as a group out-performed their non-profit sharing counterparts over a range of nine performance indicators. However, such studies also showed that employee share ownership schemes only improve a firm's performance when they are accompanied by greater involvement of the workforce.
Moreover, by itself this form of ownership does not necessarily lead to an increase in employee participation. Management has sometimes seen it simply in terms of increasing incentives. The United States National Centre for Employee Ownership found that the most significant factor in the success of American-style employee share ownership plans is worker participation. ESOP companies that simultaneously instituted participation plans grew three or four times faster than ESOP companies that did not. Other American studies suggest that ESOPs will improve economic performance only if they lead to greater employee participation.
Evidence of that kind suggests that proposals for further encouragement of employee share ownership should be aimed at increasing both the number of employee shareholders and employee participation. This is not the time to offer detailed suggestions as to how that participation may be encouraged further, although there is one proposal that I should like to make on the matter before I conclude.
With regard to share ownership, my party proposes, first, that the limit on the value of shares which may be made available to an employee in any year under a share ownership scheme should be increased from the present figure of £3,000 to £5,000, or 10 per cent. of salary whichever is the higher, and that the cut-off point should remain at £8,000, except that it should be permissible to appropriate a limited proportion of shares in each year above the cut-off.
Secondly, we propose that changes should be made to the present guidelines of the investment protection committees which represent the major pension funds and investment companies. Those guidelines at present prevent more than 5 per cent. of pre-tax profits per annum going into employee shares and share dilution exceeding I per cent. a year. In our view, it is for the directors of a company to balance the interests of shareholders and employees. Indeed, that is part of company law following the Second European Company Law Directive, which excludes issues of shares to employees from the need for shareholder approval. We would not permit the Stock Exchange to continue to

683
impose its present requirement that broadly-based employee share schemes must have shareholder approval. In that way we would remove the power of institutional investors to inhibit such schemes.
Thirdly, executive share option schemes designed as incentives for senior management do not involve the same spread of share ownership as all-employee schemes, and in fact contribute to the increasing divergence of earnings deplored so much by my noble friend Lord Grimond. We think it regrettable that the operation of those schemes and the tax relief that goes with them have not been made conditional on a company either operating them on a broad basis or also operating a widely-based scheme, particularly as more schemes for executives have been approved than those that are broadly based. In our view, the law should be modified to bring that condition into effect. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, whose maiden speech I too so much admired, appeared to me to sympathise with that view.
Perhaps I may turn to the statutory employee share ownership plans for which the 1989 and 1990 Finance Acts provided encouragement and to which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred specifically. Like him, we see a useful role for those trusts, particularly when there is a significant change in the ownership of an unquoted company, whether or not it involves flotation and its desire to vest ownership of the shares in a vehicle which will benefit employees generally. We would add to existing tax incentives for owners to transfer their business to their employees by means of an accession tax, which would restore effective taxation on the passing of property on death or by gift. Again, this is not the time to deal with the matter in detail. Suffice it to say that the main purpose would be to tax not the donor of the gift but its beneficiaries, thus encouraging the wider distribution of assets.
If that suggestion is considered too radical for speedy implementation, at least let action be taken to ensure that the main deterrents to companies using statutory ESOPs are removed. If that means altering the composition of the trustee body—as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Reay—so that control is more evenly spread between trustees who are elected by the workforce, those appointed by management and others acceptable to both groups who are independent, for my part I would not dissent. Similarly, if the present rule that an ESOP must distribute the shares bought to individual employees within seven years or lose tax relief can be shown, as seems to be the case, to be the deterrent which has most severely inhibited take-up under existing legislation, then I would agree that permanent shareholding by a trust should be made possible.
I said earlier that measures to increase employee shareholdings should go hand in hand with action to develop employee involvement more widely. In that connection I should like to refer once more to an amendment which I proposed to what became the Employment Act 1982. That amendment, which was accepted by the Government and now forms part of the Companies Act 1985, requires directors of larger companies to include in the report accompanying their annual accounts a statement describing action taken
684
during the accounting year to develop employee involvement in a number of ways. One is providing employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as employees. Another is consulting employees or their representatives regularly so that their views can be taken into account in making decisions likely to affect their interests. The third and most significant in the light of the Question we are now discussing, is encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance through an employees' share scheme or by some other means.
Following the 1982 Act the Institute of Personnel Management and the Industrial Participation Association (now the Involvement arid Participation Association) produced a code and action guide aimed at helping companies to develop employee involvement under those headings in practical ways. Both organisations asked the Government to give statutory effect to the code, but at the time the Government were unwilling to do so. Now I ask the Government to reconsider the matter. To act in that way would be an unmistakable sign of their desire to give further encouragement to employee involvement generally and employee share ownership in particular. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to respond positively to that proposal now. But I hope that when he replies he will agree to take the request back to his department for further consideration.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say again from these Benches how much I welcome the timely initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in asking his Question.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in echoing other noble: Lords who thanked the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for introducing this interesting topic, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him entirely through his; denouement. It seems to me that the Conservative Party has lost a great leader—or rather thrown her away—and is now looking for a vision. Somewhat far-fetchedly that vision is supposed to be wider employee share ownership. I should have thought the future of that party should be sought elsewhere rather than in something as narrow as that. But we shall have other occasions to discuss those matters.
I wish to concentrate on the main theme—that is, employee share ownership. In doing so, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Haskel on his maiden speech. He said many things with which I agree. But in particular—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—my noble friend spoke from experience. That is enormously valuable to your Lordships' House. It is particularly valuable to those of us who speak from these Benches. I certainly do not speak from experience. In the American vernacular, I have never had to "meet a payroll". No doubt my noble friend has, and that makes quite a bit of difference. He will both strengthen your Lordships' House and these Benches.
I was particularly struck when my noble friend spoke about not abusing employee share ownership, particularly employee options. Indeed, he referred to the share option schemes. I was thinking that many years ago the right honourable Member for Old Bexley and

685
Sidcup, Mr. Heath, referred to some of the activities of the Lonrho company as the unacceptable face of capitalism. I am bound to say that what I have seen in the financial pages of the newspapers in the past year about senior management share option schemes suggests to me that Lonrho got a raw deal in being described as the unacceptable face of capitalism. I am glad that my noble friend referred to that.
The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and other noble Lords were perfectly sensible in so far as we are discussing the technical matters to do with possible changes in the Finance Bill. I think we would all agree that the Government were too cautious. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, they should have done the thing rather differently, and there is still time to get that right. I do not think that there is anything between us on that. I hope—I know, indeed—that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will see to it that these technical points to do with taxation are brought to the notice of his right honourable friend the Chancellor, although nothing more can be said on that.
I think that someone—and it has to be me—has to introduce a word or two of controversy into this matter. If I may wear my economist's hat, the case for employee participation is put in terms of raising productivity and improving economic performance. It is not the only case. The Liberals, traditionally, have also argued that it is a good thing in itself. But it is not the main case.
The main case is that it allegedly raises productivity and economic performance. An economist would then be bound to ask: if it does that, why does the market then not see that it happens? Clearly, if it does it, as noble Lords have said, firms gain from it. But if firms gain from it, the market ought to see that this becomes the characteristic behaviour of firms. Therefore, I have to say that if I were in the Treasury, and if it were my ambition to be there—as I was in my younger days—I would have to ask the difficult question: if it is such a good thing, why does it not happen as a result of the working of the free market, and why is there any need for any public money in terms of tax concessions to be involved here? The very least one wants is an answer to that question.
I am not trying to be a total dampener on it but I think that the role of the economist—I hope that the Treasury speaks up in these harsh terms—has to be to demand an answer to that question.
There is a second question which concerns the position of the employee. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, referred to Professor Weitzman's papers, which were brilliant papers. In large part—I am speaking only from memory—those were papers about profit related pay that would give the worker a more sensitive interest in the performance of the firm. But I think that what Professor Weitzman was looking for there was the notion that that would lead to more stability of employment. Therefore, in discussing the subject, one is discussing a change in the form of workers' remuneration—to make it more sensitive to firm performance—rather than in the first place the level of workers' remuneration.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I do not want to attempt to enter into controversy on economic matters; nor do I want to appear to be an expert on what Professor Weitzman may or may not have said, but I think that I ought to reserve my position. When I have thought over it I shall see whether or not the noble Lord's interpretation of Weitzman is correct.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord said that because I, too, can only partially remember the papers. I just remember how good they were. I may have misled your Lordships as it is some years since I read them.
If I may stick with the theme of remuneration being sensitive to the performance of the firm, we have to ask the question whether it is rational on the part of the employee to wish his or her remuneration to be so sensitive, because there is then introduced into that remuneration an element of risk. It is not obvious to me that an employee would welcome that element of risk. Indeed, to go back to another point raised by my noble friend Lord Haskel, which is that the shares should be marketable, if they are marketable, one then asks the question: what is the optimum form of behaviour for the employee? Is it to hold on to those marketable shares and place his or her whole economic future in the hands of the firm that he or she is working for; or is the sensible thing to sell those shares and invest in another firm, the cyclical behaviour of which will be different from the behaviour of the firm that the person is working for?
I am not trying to argue to your Lordships that profit related pay and employee shareholder remuneration of this kind are bad things. I am simply pointing out that there are complications and economic difficulties with these matters that ought to be addressed.
Noble Lords will recall that quite a number of the ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, were argued by my noble friend—and certainly by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, who is now sitting next to me, when we were discussing the Companies Act 1989. We were pressing the Government to do rather more than they were doing. In that connection, our arguments were frequently to do with how we would deal with public companies rather than private companies. I do not reject entirely the private company argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. However, I do think that the Opposition's credentials on these matters are rather good, and that is what enables us to be as supportive of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, as I have tried to be.
In conclusion, I suppose my position is that of the standard economist—on the one hand this, and on the other hand that. I am trying to say that some of these ideas are good. I am certainly trying to say that I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look seriously at the points made on the tax treatment of ESOPs. Having said that, I do not believe that this is other than a minor problem in terms of the reform of the way we conduct our economic arrangements. Certainly, I do not see this—if I may echo the noble Lord, Lord Grimond

687
—as the way to make the 3 million unemployed both not unemployed and feel a larger part of our society. I think that other routes are the routes to that.
All one can do at this point is to wait. We shall have the Budget speech in about a month's time. I am told that we shall be allowed to debate that speech in one form or another. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will put down his name to speak on that occasion and will either congratulate the Government on doing what he wants or remind the Government that they ought to have done what he wants.
6.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords. I join my noble friend Lord Carr and others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on his maiden speech and welcome the wealth of practical experience—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, stressed that we are sometimes lacking in practical experience in some parts of the House—of both the textile business and employee share ownership in general that he brought to the debate. We look forward to hearing him on many other occasions.
My noble friend Lord Reay is justified in drawing attention to the impressive results of this Government's employee share ownership policies. The Government are proud of their commitment to advancing employee share ownership. In all but two of the past 14 years, as my noble friend made clear, they have introduced measures to make it easier for employees to acquire shares. In 1979 there was a total of 30 approved share schemes open to all employees on similar terms. Since then the number has grown to more than 2,200 all-employee share schemes. Nearly 3 million employees, as my noble friend made clear, are estimated to have benefited since the introduction of these schemes, receiving shares, or options over shares, worth around £10.3 billion.
As, I believe, all speakers made clear, with the possible exception of our noble economist, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, there are clear advantages to be gained from the identification of employees with the success and profits of the enterprise employing them. Employee involvement is likely to result in improved productivity and improved industrial relations, which are crucial if the process of wealth creation is to be advanced. Ultimately employee share ownership can be good for the economy as a whole and, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made quite clear, can bring considerable social advantages to the country as well.
It is for those reasons that we have been prepared to use the tax system to encourage employee share schemes which give employees a genuine stake in their companies' fortunes. That was why we introduced legislation in 1989 to provide a specific tax relief for a company's contributions to an ESOP. The Government decided that there was a gap in the range of opportunities for promoting employee share ownership that statutory ESOPs could fill. There were cases where large shareholdings might be made available for employees, larger than those usually associated with approved schemes, but where financing the acquisition
688
of the shares would be difficult. Inspired by US experience, ESOPs—a kind of employee benefit trust—were being set up. But before 1989 there was uncertainty whether company contributions to such trusts qualified for corporation tax relief. It was appropriate for the Government to fill this gap with a new type of statutory arrangement.
But in designing their legislation, the Government were concerned to avoid certain pitfalls, and to be consistent with their existing employee share ownership policies. In particular, the Government were determined that the new facility for statutory ESOPs should not fall into various traps. It should not divert attention from, or undermine the continuing success of existing approved employee share schemes. It should not provide only financing benefits for companies, nor become a tax shelter.
It should not provide special benefits for directors or top managers only. It should not delay real employee share ownership, or seek to restrict it.
In 1990 we took a further step to assist statutory ESOPs. A capital gains tax relief was introduced to encourage owners of shares in companies to sell them to statutory ESOPs. This relief allows gains on the sale of shares to be deferred. Finally, in 1991, the Government introduced a corporation tax relief for a company on its costs in setting up a statutory ESOP.
The introduction of all these measures confirms the Government's view that ESOPs can usefully add to the further development of employee share ownership in the UK.
I have described some of the principles underlying the ESOP legislation in some detail because I suspect that critics of the statutory ESOP requirements do not always take account of them. We understand, however, as I believe my noble friend Lord Carr put it, that we have got stuck and that not many ESOPs have been set up which comply with the statutory rules. My noble friend Lord Reay in particular, and other noble Lords, mentioned two of these rules—the trustee requirement and the seven-year rule, which he believes require modification to stimulate the setting up of more ESOPs.
Obviously my honourable and right honourable friends in the Treasury will note what my noble friend Lord Reay and other noble Lords have said. I can assure them that they have had discussions with various interested parties; in particular with those mentioned by my noble friend. I can assure my noble friend and others that they will continue to keep them under review. But as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made clear, and only a month before the Budget, I believe that noble Lords will not expect me to comment on the possibilities for change. I again stress that we note all the various suggestions, particularly those from the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. They will all be passed on to my right honourable friend.
However, some general comments may be helpful. The trustee requirement, which specifies that a majority of the trustees must be employee-selected, was intended to ensure that the trustees would remain independent of the company and its owners throughout the operation of the ESOP, and that at all times employees' interests would take precedence. We believe that the Maxwell

689
affair is a powerful reminder of the necessity for providing some form of protection for employees' interests.
We recognise that the trustee requirement may be a deterrent to the take-up of statutory ESOPs. But before taking any decision to make any radical changes, my right honourable friend will want to ensure that their underlying objectives will not be compromised.
Similarly, the seven-year rule—the period within which the ESOP trust must distribute its shares to employees—was intended to ensure that employees take real ownership of their shares without unnecessary delay. Ministers wished to avoid a criticism which is sometimes levelled against US ESOPs. I note what my noble friend Lord Reay had to say about them and also the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for them. There has been some criticism levelled against them, but they are used mainly as a substitute for more widely based and safer retirement provisions and are often of no real benefit to employees during their working lives. So if a statutory ESOP trust fails to distribute its shares within seven years, clawback charges of the corporation tax relief and of any CGT roll-over relief, can arise. I understand that it has been argued that this is a deterrent to the use of ESOPs by private businesses; for example in the case of a retiring owner who wishes to sell a large holding of his shares to his employees. I can assure the House that my right honourable friend and other colleagues in the Treasury, will continue to consider these points carefully. But it is important that ESOPs should be a vehicle for advancing employee share ownership, not permanent holders of shares in their own right.
I turn to the amendment to the Companies Act 1989 moved by my noble friend Lord Onslow and which I understand was then withdrawn as a result of a commitment made by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on that occasion. I believe that my noble friend gave a commitment to consult interested parties on the draft of an appropriate model table which would be Table G to the Companies Act 1985. No single model of a partnership company exists. The task has proven to be extremely complex. However, I understand that in August this year the Department of Trade and Industry renewed its discussions with those in the employee ownership community with a view to the preparation of the draft Table G. I can only apologise to my noble friend Lord Onslow that it does appear to have taken some time. But I hope that we can move forward without any unnecessary delay.
As I have explained, in the field of employee share ownership, we have come a long way since 1978 or even since 1928 and the Liberal Party Yellow Book, of which I was not aware as I was not around at the time. The array of tax incentives to encourage employee share ownership have never been so attractive. Earlier this year the Government, with the participation of the CBI and the TUC, undertook a promotion campaign to make more employers and employees aware of what is on offer. There has been considerable interest in the
690
promotion booklet, Sharing in Success and we hope that this will generate further interest and lead to increased employee share ownership.
In his speech, my noble friend also suggested that employee share ownership offered a more effective and direct route to involving successfully employees in the management of their firms than does the prescriptive legislation on worker participation proposed by the European Commission.
We fully support a voluntary approach to employee involvement which allows companies the flexibility to tailor arrangements according to their needs. Share ownership is one of a variety of methods which are being employed by many British companies to create a well-trained, well-motivated, flexible workforce. The Government are actively encouraging others to follow suit. I can certainly accept the general tenor of my noble friend's remarks in that field.
As to future encouragement, the Government have prepared the way, but we believe that it is up to companies to take the matter forward. Wearing my ministerial hat as a Department of Employment Minister, perhaps I may stress the importance which the Department of Employment and the Government as a whole attach to employee share ownership. I can assure my noble friend and other noble Lords that the Department of Employment was involved in the booklet, Sharing in Success. My noble friend will note that that has a foreword signed by both the then Chancellor and the then Secretary of State for Employment. I can stress that there is to be a new booklet from the Department of Employment on employee involvement arrangements generally in the United Kingdom. It will include a chapter on employee financial participation, including employee share ownership schemes.
Finally, perhaps I may reassure my noble friends Lord Reay and Lord Boyd-Carpenter and all others that the Government's commitment to encouraging this process is as strong as ever even if, obviously, I cannot anticipate what might emerge from the Budget. Fully motivated employees with a financial stake in their enterprises are far more likely to be a decisive factor in the success of companies which are looking to compete in the expanding European and world markets of the 1990s and beyond.

World Heritage Sites
6.50 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards world heritage sites, in particular Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, turning from broad things to deep things, as it were, and from new to old, I am glad to have the opportunity of tabling this Unstarred Question tonight and I am grateful to noble Lords who are present for this debate and to those who will speak after me. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, has had to scratch from the debate. He told the House what he thought earlier in the week, so we shall take that on board.
The United Kingdom is bound by the 1972 international Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage to do the following things. It is bound to ensure the,
"protection, conservation … and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage".
The UK adhered to the convention in 1984 and our 13 world heritage sites were identified by the Government themselves. Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites is one of them—I am sorry about the cumbersome expression, but that is its name—and is alone of its kind in that it comprises two great neolithic ceremonial landscapes which are quite widely separated one from the other.
Another international instrument which the Government have signed but which is not yet in force is the Council of Europe Convention on Archaeology. This should not be forgotten either. The English Tourist Board published an excellent document on sustainable tourism a couple of years ago; and that concept is taken up in another recent Department of the Environment consultation paper called Sustainable Development. The Regional Planning Guidance for the South West, in which Stonehenge and Avebury lie, also talks sensibly about "sustainable tourism". I shall return to these points.
At Stonehenge itself one of the most important factors is, indeed, sustainability. What is the maximum sustainable number of tourists at the stones themselves and over the whole equally important associated sites area?
A paper called the Draft Policy Planning Guidance No. 15, which has just finished its consultation period and is due out in its final form later this year, does mention world heritage sites, but pretty much in passing. As interested Members of the House will know, these planning policy guidances are the daily bread-and-butter manual for local planning authorities when dealing with planning. This guidance is devoted to "the heritage" and is consequently of extraordinary practical importance. For that reason it is a great pity that the present draft text is rather weak. It seems almost to be telling local authorities that the Government are not too concerned about their commitments to world heritage sites under the 1972 convention; and seems to suggest they need not be too concerned either. I have sent to the relevant Minister some suggestions for beefing the whole thing up: that would be quite simple to do.
The point is that the Government of this country have under this convention assumed certain obligations, and have done so before world opinion. That is what treaties mean. And if the central government have done so as a whole, then they have done so on behalf of every part of central government. They have also done so on behalf of the local planning authorities, who are the creatures of Parliament and form part of the government of this country. They are as much bound by the 1972 convention as the central government, and it is the duty of central government to tell them how to carry out their obligations and to see that they do.
The Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites world heritage site shows up only too clearly the problems at
692
present facing world heritage sites in relation to the planning system—and vice versa. Everything that happens at Stonehenge has implications for Avebuty. This has to be borne in mind now at Stonehenge. I have in mind particularly the great discovery of two large neolithic circles at Avebury under the West Kennet farmhouse. This discovery was made six years ago. The farmhouse was bought a few years ago by a speculative builder, who proposed a hotel and was then bankrupted. The receiver held it for months and months during which its listed buildings deteriorated. It has now been sold by the receiver to another anonymous buyer, probably another speculative builder: at any rate he will not divulge his identity. And during all these months—years now—English Heritage, though of the opinion that the new archaeological discoveries should be scheduled (as who would not be?) has not got round to persuading the Government to schedule them. Moreover, the boundary of the world heritage site cuts right through these circles, and no steps have been taken to extend that boundary.
All this indicates a certain confusion and laxness. First of all comes the question of how, within government, such things are handled. At the moment, it is a cat's cradle of ownerships and responsibilities. English Heritage answers to the Department for National Heritage; planning inquiries are run by the Department of the Environment; local planning authorities are instructed by the planning policy guidances which I have just mentioned which come from the Department of the Environment and the Department for National Heritage; trunk roads belong to the Department of Transport, and local roads to the highway authorities and thus to local government. The Ministry of Defence owns important bits of land at Stonehenge and elsewhere, and different official bodies designate the various areas of special scientific interest and so on which also exist hereabouts. The National Trust holds land inalienably, and the Secretary of State for National Heritage—or is it the Secretary of State for the Environment; I have not been able to find out—holds land for the Crown and delegates its management to English Heritage. At Stonehenge, the National Trust is even more tightly committed by the terms of its original public appeal for money to save parts of the Stonehenge estate: both "the plough", which must surely include "the bulldozer", and seaside-type jollification in general would be precluded for ever under the terms of the appeal, and solitude and silence restored.
This means that there is very great difficulty in devising a joint management structure for the whole Stonehenge area which many, including, I believe, both English Heritage and the National Trust, would like and which they are trying to devise. The idea is a management trust, perhaps "leasing" from the Crown and the National Trust. But it will be difficult to decide to whom the trust is responsible. We must wish them well in their attempts to sort this out. It will be the first time that such a thing has been tried and it will not be easy. In short, it is absolutely right that the noble

693
Baroness answering on this occasion should enjoy interdepartmental status. If I may say so, that is a great advantage of her position.
At Stonehenge, it is certainly necessary to get something better than what there is now, which is awful. But even more important is to get it right. Many plans and changes of plan over the last decade have emerged from English Heritage. Earlier this year the Department of Transport came up with some proposals for "improving" the A.303 trunk road which runs right through the world heritage site. Each of the department's two proposed routes is entirely unacceptable, and I understand that English Heritage and the National Trust have told Ministers this—so, I expect, has the relevant international body which invigilates world heritage sites.
I wonder whether the officials devising the routes were aware that the Department of Transport is just as much bound by the 1972 convention as is any other part of the Government. For that part of the A.303, the only thing that can make sense is a long tunnel from east of King Barrow Hill to west of Longbarrow roundabout. That, I hope, is what English Heritage and the National Trust have told the Department of Transport. It will of course be expensive, but that is something upon which they cannot scrimp. This is one of the very oldest and grandest things in the world. The cost of tunnelling is coming down all the time. The Department of Transport is spending, it says, £1,509 million on new construction this year and next, which is 64 per cent. of its total expenditure. The rest relates to the improvement of older roads. So the money is there—it really is—if the priorities can be got right.
Now as to sustainable tourism, monuments can be worn out. The Parthenon is closed because it was being worn away by visitors; the Lascaux Caves are closed because visitors' breath was destroying the painting; Snowdon is protected from being overrun by having a very small carpark, which is a clever idea; and the National Trust rightly carefully omits to advertise certain of its vulnerable properties.
It is the control of numbers that is the key to sustainable tourism. What is the sustainable number of tourists at the stones of Stonehenge themselves and over the whole, equally important, green, associated sites around it? A figure of 1 million tourists a year has sometimes emerged. That was absurd. My impression is that it might well now have been abandoned. I hope so.
Stonehenge has absolutely to be protected. The convenience of today's mass tourism organisers has to come a very late second to that. English Heritage has to work out very carefully what number of visitors throughout the Stonehenge estate is sustainable. If it does not do so, it will get its plans wrong.
How do we interpret "protection" and "conservation", which is the language of the 1972 convention? When does necessary development—for instance, a new visitors' centre as at Stonehenge—become exploitation or indeed provide a visual rival to the monument itself? Is any new touristíc development within the world heritage site permissible? At Fountains Abbey, most regrettably, the new visitors' centre has to be described
694
as exploitation in its own right: its whole scale and character seem aimed at rivalling the abbey ruins and wiping them out of one's mind as one returns to leave the site through the visitors' centre. Its huge cost is reflected in high entrance prices that visitors so strongly resent. "Isn't this our monument?", they write, again and again in the comments book. "We cannot afford to come again".
At Stonehenge we have the question of the new visitors' centre. I hope we get the long tunnel road (at least 4 kilometres); and the carpark set way back at Amesbury at the Countess Road roundabout. I hope that visitors will then approach the stones themselves by a little railway (part of the track is still there from the First World War) which is very unobtrusive and largely underground. The only question outstanding is whether the visitors' centre should be built wholly underground, under the site of the then closed A.303, so as not to damage any more archaeology, or whether it could not be safely sited back at the Countess Road roundabout where it could be built in the fresh air. Nothing would happen except that one would go on the tiny train, emerge through a modest hole in the ground and spread out over the whole green space of Stonehenge.
I believe that no substantial exploitative development in a greenfield site at Stonehenge can any longer even be contemplated, and I believe that English Heritage now shares that conviction.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, all those interested in our heritage should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving us once again an opportunity to question government policy on world heritage sites. I well recall the debate we had in February 1989 when the noble Lord raised the specific question of government policy towards Avebury which had recently become a world heritage site. He rightly pointed out then that there was little point in giving such sites special status if they received no treatment such as additional planning protection and financial help. He also called for a special commission to report on the problem.
The Government were not too receptive or enthusiastic about that idea, and felt that due to the diversity of sites and the existing powers to control areas of outstanding natural beauty and SSSIs they had all the powers that were necessary. As chairman of English Heritage at the time, which was the statutory adviser to the Department of the Environment on such matters, we nevertheless decided to take the initiative, and in the debate I announced that we would be setting up a working party, not just to study the Avebury world heritage site but, in co-operation with the National Trust, local authorities and other interested parties, to produce a management strategy plan which could in some cases be relevant to other world heritage sites.
I am glad to say that the working party was duly set up, and a management statement which had been agreed by all the interested bodies represented on it was launched formally in the council chamber of Kennet District Council at Devizes in September 1992. The statement recommended that the working party should

695
continue to take forward the various specific areas of work that needed to be done in a proactive way, within the overall framework of the management strategy.
The working party has now appointed two practical sub-groups, one to address the question of traffic and visitor management and the other to concentrate upon the historical and archaeological aspects of the site. Both of those groups have produced useful reports which I understand are currently out for consultation with the interested bodies with a view to their implementation, subject to the results of any comments received. Such work needs to be ongoing, but I have been assured by my successor at English Heritage that he is reasonably happy about the level of thought, effort and attention that is going into the world heritage site at Avebury at present.
There is, as every visitor knows, a confusing overlap in the National Trust and English Heritage curatorship of Avebury. In my time I initiated discussions with the National Trust to explore the wisdom and practicality of the four monuments there currently looked after by English Heritage passing to the National Trust under some form of guardianship agreement. I am delighted to hear constructive discussions have continued, and that there is a good chance that the National Trust will curate the whole of Avebury from 1st April next year—an excellent step forward.
With regard to the more general question of world heritage sites, they are of widely differing kinds. Blenheim is, for example, a single historic site, whereas Bath is a complete city. Durham is a great cathedral in a city, whereas Stonehenge is a site set in an archaeological landscape. It is therefore impossible to lay down specific rules for world heritage sites as different forms of approach are needed for each management plan.
To talk about Stonehenge in particular, one of the first actions I took as chairman of English Heritage in 1984 was to set up a working party on Stonehenge, which reported in 1985. The report was well received in that it suggested how Stonehenge could be isolated in its archaeological environment by closing the A.344, which virtually goes through the site, and removing the unsightly tourist facilities from their present position to one three-quarters of a mile away from the stones themselves. They are all measures which a world heritage site such as Stonehenge surely deserves.
Unfortunately, the plan suffered frustrating delays due to the inability of the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Defence, local authorities and certain local individuals, to agree upon a solution. It was not helped by the Department of Transport telling us categorically that there were no plans for extending the dual carriage-way on the A.303 any further west in the foreseeable future. My preferred solution of a tunnel was thought desirable, but viewed as too expensive.
It was with great pleasure that I recently learnt that there has been a miraculous change of heart at the Department of Transport and a serious study is at present underway into building an even longer tunnel of four kilometres, and that interest in the two routes to the south has considerably waned. This is just the kind of special consideration that a site like this deserves.
696
I further understand that the present Chairman of English Heritage has had the very practical idea of building the new visitors' centre underground as part of the tunnelling operation, which would do even more to restore a sense of openness to the landscape. I welcome this plan with great enthusiasm. Of course, we all know that tunnels are expensive but so are new roads. I cannot believe that the difference between the cost: of a tunnel as envisaged and the proposed alternative road is so different as to make the Government, indeed any government, wish to ignore the tremendous advantages of the tunnel solution.
What I am certain of is that whichever government restore the reputation of Stonehenge to one of the world's greatest archaeological sites will deserve much praise and respect. Indeed, the reputation of the whole country with regard to all our historic sites will be measured and judged internationally by the way in which we look after our world heritage sites. There is no doubt in my mind that special policies and measures have to be adopted as owners of such sites, be they government, local authorities, ecclesiastical or private, have unusual responsibilities and unique liabilities, I know that my noble friend the Duke of Marlborough is very proud that Blenheim is a world heritage site. Nevertheless, as he rightly points out, the grants that English Heritage has been able to give him have been woefully inadequate for such an enormous set of buildings. Even, apparently, rich men are daunted by the scale of the problem.
I am confident that world heritage sites are now becoming increasingly respected, and are looming larger in the preparation of local plans. What I am pleading for tonight is that they should also loom larger in the minds of government departments., and I hope that my noble friend Lady Trumpington will be able to reassure me on this point.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have put forward most cogent arguments. I speak as the chairman of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, which is the national body of survey and record of the historic environment. I wish to confirm the great importance that: it attaches to the status of the world heritage sites. For instance, it has only recently carried out the first modem archaeological ground survey of Avebury Stone Circle and its associated sites and it has revised the mapping of Hadrian's Wall and other such sites.
The commission's records and expertise are available to those who directly care for and manage such sites. We hope that those records and expertise can help the decision-making process when new developments affecting world heritage sites are proposed. 'Thus, English Heritage will be using our extensive information on Hadrian's Wall in its monuments protection programme. With particular reference to this debate, our information on sites identified from the air is informing the choice of the route of the A.303.
In addition, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMAS UK) is assessing our information as

697
it produces short monitoring reports on each of the world heritage cultural sites in England. In the light of the ICOMAS UK report, the commission in its turn will be assessing what further records of world heritage sites will be desirable to assist in the long-term preservation of world sites.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing these important issues before the House.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising this subject and to other noble Lords for participating in the debate. The question of the Government's policy towards world heritage sites raises the subject of their relationship with UNESCO. Although the world heritage sites come under the World Heritage Convention, to which we are a party, we must consider the Government's present policy on UNESCO. Two debates which took place earlier this year considered the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said that the Government approached the question of renewal of membership of UNESCO with a genuinely open mind. Will the noble Baroness indicate whether the Government are closer to reaching a decision? Is our membership, or non-membership, of UNESCO likely to affect the attitude of that body towards the provision of financial support for our heritage sites? Have the Government taken that into consideration?
I turn to the sites and to Stonehenge in particular. I do not claim to have any special knowledge of Stonehenge but I have first-hand experience of trying to preserve an historic building and of managing large-scale public access. I am well aware of the problems of balancing conservation with the access of tourists to the site. I have another tenuous connection with Stonehenge; in the 18th century my wife's ancestor, William Stuteley, played a major part in the exploration, surveying and preservation of Stonehenge. As it happens, I was driving along the A.303 last Sunday and was able to update my knowledge of Stonehenge.
All of us who have visited and know this magnificent and ancient site agree that something needs to be done and that the existing arrangements for visitors and the road configuration are unsatisfactory. We all support action, and action soon, but the difficulty is agreeing on what should be done. Everyone agrees that the visitor facilities are inadequate and that the A.344 should be grassed over and the visitor centre moved elsewhere. The difficulty, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is to decide how far away the tourist facilities should be, how large they should be, whether tourists should be encouraged, the degree of tourism that can be maintained and so forth. Those extremely difficult questions cause and have caused endless argument and tend to prevent anything from being done.
I understand that the main problem with the English Heritage preferred site at Larkhill is the considerable expense of building a long approach road. Therefore, I was pleased to hear the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for new positioning perhaps in connection with a tunnelling operation for the A.303.
698
A cheaper solution would be to use the Fargo Plantation site, which is the solution favoured by my party's representatives on the Salisbury District Council. However, there are disadvantages and problems associated with the architectural value of the area. I recognise that the problem is very difficult. I hope that in an attempt to create too grandiose a scheme we do not continue to do nothing.
I wish to make a final and perhaps controversial point. I believe that this country's heritage should not be totally dead. In managing an historic property one is conscious of the compliments which are often received indicating that one of the valuable aspects of the property is that it is lived in, used and alive. Clearly, that does not apply to Stonehenge but, nevertheless, it is an important living symbol to many people. Admittedly, some of them have a reputation for antisocial behaviour. I have sympathy for those who wish to celebrate the Summer Solstice in peace at Stonehenge. I hope that any future arrangement will be so structured as to make possible the use of the stones by members of the public so that they can play an ongoing living role in the enjoyment of those visitors.
That is all that I wish to say tonight. Once again, I should like to thank other speakers for participating in the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I should, first, like to take the opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to her new ministerial post. It is my first opportunity to do so. I can say with conviction that I believe her knowledge of, and support for, the very central part of this portfolio—which, of course, is horse-racing—demonstrates her excellent qualifications for the job. We look forward to working very much in amity with her on various major policy issues of that kind.
As other speakers have said, I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for instigating the debate on a matter of great cultural interest. He introduced the debate with his considerable knowledge, with the aid of his former ministerial experience and his local expertise. My noble friend has certainly given the Minister, the Government and, indeed, all of us something to consider.
The debate was enlightened by several high level and very expert interventions, with a level of expertise which I cannot aspire to match. It seems to me to have focused on two main issues which were there in the basic proposition—the more general question of planning procedures for important heritage sites and the specific problems of Stonehenge. I shall say a few words about each, bearing in mind that it is getting late on a Thursday night.
Both of those issues—and, indeed, the related issues which have arisen or which could be introduced—contain basic factors and dilemmas in common. The root dilemma is that those problems involve a number of genuine, legitimate but conflicting interests. In nearly all of the questions concerning Avebury, Stonehenge, and so on which involve heritage sites, there is a

699
fundamental heritage issue. In this case, it is mainly archaeological but there may be broadly architectural and historical aspects. There is often an environmental issue linked to the particular heritage issue. Moreover, there is usually a local community interest—that is, the basic concerns of the people who live and work in the area—and often a transport issue, as is the case here with the A.303 across Wiltshire. The interests of transient citizens are also legitimate but may or may not coincide with the interests of the local community. Finally, there is usually a separate economic interest, especially in terms of tourism.
Those different interests often point to more or less, to bigger or smaller constructions on the site and more or fewer roads to, from or across the site (or facilities for visitors); or, greater access, controlled access or limited or less access to the site. Preserving the historical entity usually means inhibiting modern demands. There is also an underlying aesthetic dimension—that anything that is done should be done well and beautifully.
It is not easy to achieve a consensus on the latter. Therefore, I shall begin by humbly acknowledging the dreadfully difficult task which all decision makers face in the field. Ultimately. in the real world, there must be concessions and compromises. The challenge is to get a fair balance between those legitimate and conflicting interests. However, for me that does not mean an equal balance. I should say at the start that I personally give top priority to the need to respect the historic personalities of the sites and, therefore, the archaeological considerations in the case of Stonehenge.
All other considerations, especially tourism and transport, should be subordinate to the historical and archaeological dimension. The archaeology of Stonehenge—and, indeed, Avebury, as was mentioned—is finite and unrepeatable. Once damaged or destroyed, it cannot be recreated or re-invented. Decisions which damage or destroy it are permanent and irrevocable. By contrast, the purposes of, say, tourism and transport can to some extent be replicated elsewhere. In any event, their priorities may change over time. We should certainly not grovel to tourism, important though it its economically, because it is the nature of tourism to overwhelm and destroy the very objects of its greatest desire. That is certainly a danger for Stonehenge over the coming years.
I should now like to move a little closer to the specifics of the debate. As regards the planning issue, I listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Kennet regarding the policy guidances and our treaty obligations. I shall also listen carefully to the Minister's response. I believe that my noble friend demonstrated convincingly the terrible tangle of responsibilities cutting across so many departments and institutional boundaries when looking at such a problem as Stonehenge. If that can be simplified or rationalised, I think that it would be a great help.
My main concern in the area is with the adequacy of current planning procedures in relation to all sites of heritage and cultural interest. Such sites need great and special care so far as concerns planning, bearing in mind those conflicting cultural, community, environmental, transport and tourist interests to which I referred. We
700
must also remember that we are considering heritage sites of great world historic importance—classified as such in treaties. We know that Stonehenge and Avebury are surely the most important prehistoric sites outside the Mediterranean.
I question whether the planning committee of the local district council or the metropolitan borough, with all respect to those local dignitaries, is on an appropriate scale to deal with issues of such complexity and international cultural importance. I believe that the recent threats to Avebury, which have been mentioned, and the great neolithic site linked to Stonehenge, from proposed hotels, theme parks and so on underline that point. Would it not be better to have a statutory system of referring all applications affecting world heritage sites—or, perhaps, a wider range of sites—automatically to the Department of the Environment, with an obligation on the department to involve the heritage, environment and local community interests?
I turn now to Stonehenge. We seem to be on the edge of some critical decisions. English Heritage and the National Trust have given the matter immense thought and have commendably consulted a wide public opinion. However, I would urge them not to be too influenced by the polls. We should remember that crucial prehistoric bones do not have a vote in such matters. I believe that the Government would be wise to consider what English Heritage and the National Trust jointly propose in a very positive manner. They should certainly not allow the short-term or the cheapest solutions of the Department of Transport to prevail.
In the latter context, I should like to make a few final specific points on the proposals that have been aired. The present situation is unacceptable and unsustainable. The present roads—namely, the A.303 and the A.344—destroy the unity and sanctity of this great site. The present visitors' centre is ugly, with totally inadequate facilities. Therefore, the roads must be moved and hidden and the visitors' centre replaced and hidden. The two proposals from the Ministry of Transport for grey and yellow routes for the A.303 should be rejected, as English Heritage rightly concluded. The A.303 should be buried in the longest possible tunnel, thus preserving the landscape and the archaeological site. The visitors' centre should be considered in tandem with the tunnel solution and with the new A.303 and, like it, hidden (possibly in the bed of the old A.303) so that there is no more damage to any new sites.
The visitors' centre should also be of good architectural design so as not to intrude on the site landscape and—this is very important—it must be adequate to the needs of the next 30 or 50 years because we must not have this matter dug up all over again. On a more general point, Stonehenge must be seen, restored and preserved as part of that wider landscape of the heritage sites to which it is historically linked.
Will Her Majesty's Government ensure that all planning applications affecting world heritage sites go direct to the Department of the Environment, with an obligation to involve heritage expertise? What other proposals do Her Majesty's Government have to provide greater protection for world heritage sites? With specific regard to Stonehenge, will the Minister assure

701
the House that the Government will look favourably on the longest possible tunnel for the new A.303; on incorporating the new visitors' centre into that plan; and above all on giving priority to heritage and archaeological considerations which involve the least possible disturbance to this unique site?
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his extremely kind remarks. Did he say that it was his first appearance here?
Lord Donoughue: No, my Lords. However, it is my first appearance in the daunting shadow of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I was awfully glad to see that "Lady Donoughue" ran rather nicely a week or so ago. It seems to me to be particularly appropriate that my first speech as the new spokesman for national heritage should concern the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on ancient monuments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for the advance notice he gave me of the points that he wished to raise.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government are fully aware of their obligations under the World Heritage Convention and of the importance of all the UK world heritage sites. We are particularly concerned to ensure that the sites are adequately protected.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, asked me about the position with regard to UNESCO. The question of whether the UK should rejoin UNESCO is a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. All I can tell the noble Lord is that the matter is still under consideration. We fully comply with our obligations under the World Heritage Convention despite not being a member of UNESCO. Far from being paid money we have contributed to the World Heritage Fund £100,000 this year.
Under the terms of Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention, we are required to,
"endeavour, in so far as possible, and as appropriate for each country:… to set up, where such services do not exist, one or more services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and national heritage with an appropriate staff and possessing the means to discharge their functions".
We believe we have complied with Article 5. These services do exist in the UK and, in our view, the sites are adequately protected. Clearly, world heritage designation of a site is something which should be, and is, taken into account in UK planning procedures. And the main vehicle for ensuring the protection and preservation of our world heritage sites is through the statutory development plan and development control systems.
It is for each local authority, taking account of world heritage site designation and other relevant statutory designations, to formulate planning policies for these sites and to include these policies in their development plans. Different policies will be appropriate for different sites, but policies should reflect the fact that all these sites have been designated for their outstanding
702
universal value. Great weight should therefore be placed on the need to protect them for the benefit of future generations as well as our own.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked me about planning applications. Mechanisms are already available. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Secretary of State can call in any application for his own decision. Inclusion of a site in the world heritage list is not therefore, by itself, a direct instrument of planning control, but it does signal the importance of the site as a material factor to be taken into account by a local planning authority or by the Secretary of State for the Environment on appeal or, as I have already said, following call in. This is demonstrated by the cases at Avebury referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and by other cases at Ironbridge Gorge and, most recently, at Hadrian's Wall.
The planning applications at Hadrian's Wall were for exploratory drilling for hydrocarbons on land 400 metres south of the wall, and for open cast coal extraction on a former colliery site just north of the wall. Both applications were called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment and, following public inquiries, planning permission was refused in both cases. The main issue in each case was the possible impact of the development on the setting of the world heritage site. The Secretary of State concluded that the impact of the developments would be unacceptable. I have visited the wall and I know that it is a spectacular site. The surrounding countryside is also spectacular. Therefore I could not agree more with the decision of the Secretary of State.
I fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about planning protection for Avebury, and obviously all future proposed developments there should be scrutinized most carefully by the local planning authority. It must assess each proposal on its merits in the light of all material considerations, including the local plan for the area which was adopted last year, as well as other well established policies which apply to the locality. The Secretary of State for the Environment will equally have these considerations in mind when dealing with any applications and appeals that come before him for decision.
We must not, however, be complacent. My department is keeping a close watch on the situation regarding these important sites and aims to ensure that the legislation continues to provide an adequate framework for their protection. Recent changes include the strengthening of the planning and enforcement provisions in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the guidance in the Planning and Policy Guidance Note on Archaeology and Planning, published in 1990, which includes a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of nationally important archaeological remains, whether or not they are scheduled, and their settings.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will wish to note that my department is also including some guidance on the World Heritage Convention in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, which was published in draft for consultation in July. This guidance makes it clear that although world heritage site status does not entail

703
additional statutory controls, it is a material consideration in the planning process, which provides the main means of safeguarding the sites. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has commented on the draft guidance, and we will be giving very careful consideration to the points he has made. Our aim is to publish the PPG early next year.
My department is also providing grant-aid over three years for the International Council on Monuments and Sites (UK) (commonly known as ICOMOS UK) to produce, with the agreement and co-operation of site owners, monitoring reports for the English sites. These reports will record the main facts about the condition and use of the sites, the management arrangements, visitor numbers, and draw attention to current issues affecting each site. ICOMOS UK will also encourage the production of comprehensive management plans for the sites. This is an important initiative which should assist the various organisations with responsibilities in this important area. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be interested to know that the boundaries of our world heritage sites will be looked at again by ICOMOS in the context of the monitoring reports.
My noble friend Lady Park mentioned the important role that the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments in England will be playing in that exercise. ICOMOS will certainly find the commission's extensive records most useful in drawing up the monitoring reports.
The exercise builds on the excellent initiative announced by my noble friend Lord Montagu in this House on 13th February 1989 of the preparation of a management strategy for Avebury. The strategy, which was produced by English Heritage in co-operation with the National Trust, the local authorities and others, was published in September 1992 and is designed to improve liaison between the various parties to ensure the proper planning and management of this internationally important site. There has been a great deal of good will among the various organisations. I should like to stress that fact in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, about cutting down the number of organisations involved.
The working party which co-operated over the production of the management strategy has continued in existence as the report recommended, and two further reports—addressing traffic and visitor management and archaeological and historical aspects—have been produced. Those reports are currently out to consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised the subject of the emergency scheduling of the neolithic monuments which have recently been discovered at West Kennet Farmhouse. English Heritage's programme of work of preparing scheduling recommendations for the sites around Avebury, which is not restricted to the world heritage site and will include the West Kennet longbarrow, should be completed by next April. However, English Heritage will then need to complete a number of necessary administrative procedures, including pre-notification and responding to any objections, before any scheduling recommendations can
704
be submitted to my department for consideration. English Heritage is nearing the pre-notification stage in respect of some of the proposals.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Am I right in thinking that there exists a procedure for emergency or spot scheduling? If that is so, what better case could there be for the exercise of that procedure than at these great monuments?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am afraid that spot scheduling has not crossed my path in the past week. If there is information of any importance which I can give the noble Lord I shall write to him.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park for drawing our attention in the context of the matters I have just mentioned to the excellent work of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, which provides: an invaluable contribution to our knowledge of sites and monuments and a central basis for their protection.
Turning to Stonehenge, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has taken an energetic interest in the proposals affecting the site and setting. It is true that many agencies are involved in determining the future of the area. That is often the case with large and complex developments, and the more so in this instance when such an important and fragile part of our heritage is at stake.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, both expressed a preference: for routing the A.303 through a long tunnel, as did the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. That option has emerged from the public consultation earlier this year. The ideas of an extended tunnel under a world heritage site and an underground visitor centre at New King Barrows are major issues of practicality and cost which need to be explored. That will take some time. Your Lordships will be interested to know that the idea is being examined most seriously by English Heritage and the Department of Transport.
The local authorities have responded energetically to ensure that local interests and the wider interests in the site benefited from their close scrutiny of the proposals at an early stage, ensuring that they are fully informed in discharging their statutory duties. It is abundantly clear first, that among all the options proposed none enjoys the support of everyone. Therefore, any solution is bound to be to some extent a compromise. Secondly, the one point on which there is very substantial agreement is that the present facilities at Stonehenge are themselves inadequate and detract from the special power of the site. I agree with the chairman of English Heritage that something must be done. I can assure the noble Lord that all parties are working to make sure that the solution chosen properly respects the importance of the whole Stonehenge area to our heritage and to the world heritage.
As your Lordships will be aware, my department is responsible not only for heritage matters but for tourism policy also. It was concern about the impact of tourism on historic towns, heritage sites and the countryside which prompted the Government to launch the Tourism and Environment Initiative in August 1990. A task force was established, which found that the problems are not

705
as widespread as is sometimes believed. Where they do occur they are restricted to particular places at particular times of the year. The task force also found that much was already being done to ameliorate existing difficulties and suggested a number of ways in which other problems could be prevented or remedied.
The green theme has permeated through the whole range of tourism activity, from the national promotion of "alternative" destinations to the environmental focus given to many local tourism initiatives. One such is the Wiltshire tourism project, with which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be familiar, in which the impact of increased tourism on the environment is a key consideration. The project seeks to bring the economic benefits which tourism unquestionably provides without impinging on the very things that make the area so attractive to visit in the first place. One of its specific aims is to promote Wiltshire as a whole and encourage visits to places other than those which are already
706
popular with tourists such as Stonehenge and Avebury. As we all know, Wiltshire has much more to offer the visitor in addition to those notable landmarks.
I reiterate that we fully appreciate the importance of these internationally renowned sites, each differing from the other, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Montagu. However, we remain of the view that the existing statutory provisions are sufficient and provide a proper basis for the control of development and protection of the sites. We shall, of course, continue to keep a close watch on the situation and ensure that the legislation continues to provide a flexible and adequate framework for their protection. Your Lordships can rest assured that the interesting and varied comments which have emerged during this evening's valuable short debate will be carefully examined and noted by my department.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.

  LEGAL AID EXPENDITURE: FORECAST
  LEGAL AID EXPENDITURE: FORECAST
  WYMOTT PRISON DISTURBANCE: REPORT
  WYMOTT PRISON DISTURBANCE: REPORT
  RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT CENTRES
  RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT CENTRES
  PHARMACISTS: REMUNERATION
  PHARMACISTS: REMUNERATION
  BIODIESEL FUEL TRIAL: EMISSIONS TESTS
  BIODIESEL FUEL TRIAL: EMISSIONS TESTS
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL BRUSSELS, 28th SEPTEMBER
  TRANSPORT COUNCIL BRUSSELS, 28th SEPTEMBER
  EC TRANSPORT MINISTERS MEETING, 27th SEPTEMBER
  EC TRANSPORT MINISTERS MEETING, 27th SEPTEMBER
  LONDON UNDERGROUND ENGINEERS: MOVE
  LONDON UNDERGROUND ENGINEERS: MOVE
  BRITISH RAIL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD: FUTURE
  BRITISH RAIL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD: FUTURE
  INCOME SUPPORT: RECIPIENTS
  INCOME SUPPORT: RECIPIENTS
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY