Sitting of 11 July 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Outdoor Activity Centres
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement regarding the setting up of an accreditation and inspection scheme for outdoor activity centres.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): The Activity Centre Advisory Committee has now employed consultants to draw up and pilot guidelines for individual activities; those and future inspection arrangements will be considered further by the ACAC at its next meeting in September.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that this summer hundreds of thousands of children will go to outdoor activity centres and undertake potentially hazardous activities? Although I welcome the voluntary accreditation scheme and the limited inspection announced earlier this year as a partial solution, does the Minister share my concern that, because of the voluntary nature of the scheme, cowboy centres, working well below safety levels, will continue to put children's lives at risk?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and of course we are all concerned about that. We look forward to the ACAC's recommendations on that and other points in September.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: The Minister will be aware that the Scout Association meets the standards set down by the British Canoe Union—and, indeed, standards higher than those—not only for canoeing but for other adventure activities that the association offers to young people. While giving careful consideration to standards, will my hon. Friend make absolutely sure that we do not strangle adventure activities for young people with red tape?
    Mr. Sproat: We shall maintain a wise balance.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that he would be applying some common sense that everyone involved in schools and the youth movement would applaud if, ahead of any report from the advisory committee, he announced that a statutory scheme would be introduced? That would give schools and clubs the confidence to believe that outdoor activity centres validated by such a scheme would be up to standard and safe.
    Mr. Sproat: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The ACAC is looking at the possibilities of a voluntary accreditation scheme.

    Sports Clubs (Isle of Wight)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the clubs and facilities on the Isle of Wight which have received grants from the Sports Council since 1987.
    Mr. Sproat: The Sports Council has awarded grants and loans totalling £260,557 to 23 clubs, facilities and organisations on the Isle of Wight since 1987–88. I will arrange for a list of recipients to be placed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Isle of Wight, the first unitary authority in England, provides an ideal opportunity to enhance all the sporting facilities throughout the island for the benefit of young and old alike? Will he take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the Foundation for Sport and the Arts on its extraordinary generosity to sports clubs on the island and to sportsmen and sportswomen?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which has given more than £500,000 to the island. That is extremely welcome. I also agree with my hon. Friend's other remarks.
    Mr. Barnes: Future grants for the Isle of Wight will come from the new Sports Council. On Friday, the Minister said that the six independent members of that council would be appointed by the Government, but would be independent of them. How will he work that trick?
    Mr. Sproat: It is not a trick; it is a simple, straightforward matter. The independent members of the council will be independent of the Government in any tactical decisions that they may make. They will also, and importantly, be independent of other vested sports interests which legitimately put their views—for instance, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the British Olympic Association. That is the sense of the term "independent" in that context.
    The following is the information:

    Sports Council grants and loans awarded to clubs, facilities and organisations on the Isle of Wight for financial years 1987–88 to 1994–95

    Organisation

    Capital £

    Revenue £

    1987–88

    Isle of Wight Cricket Association

    1,000

    East Cowes Victoria Athletic Club

    5,000

    Body Tech

    —

    200

    Isle of Wight Sports Centre

    —

    355

    Isle of Wight Cricket Association

    —

    2,500

    1988–89

    Isle of Wight Sport and Recreation Council

    —

    199

    Isle of Wight Youth and Community Service

    —

    100

    1989–90

    Nil

    1990–91

    West Wight Swimming Pool Trust Ltd.

    110,000

    Medina borough council

    —

    18,000

    Isle of Wight Sports Council

    —

    3,000

    Organisation

    Capital £

    Revenue £

    1991–92

    Cowes Sports Football Club

    110,000

    Freshwater Bay Golf Club

    14,000

    Medina borough council

    —

    2,167

    Hampshire and Isle of Wight LTA

    —

    1,700

    1992–93

    Isle of Wight county council

    —

    1,686

    Hampshire and Isle of Wight LTA

    —

    5,500

    Hampshire and Isle of Wight Football Association

    —

    4,150

    1993–94

    Isle of Wight county council

    —

    6,000

    Isle of Wight County Cricket Association

    —

    3,000

    1994–95

    Ryde Sports Club

    100,000

    Isle of Wight Table Tennis Centre

    75,000

    Isle of Wight county council

    —

    5,000

    Isle of Wight County Cricket Association

    —

    2,000

    £

    Capital total

    =

    205,000

    Revenue total

    =

    55,557

    Grand total

    =

    260,557

    1Loan.

    Deregulation
    Mrs. Browning: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy on deregulation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: My Department takes a keen interest in the impact of regulation, from whatever source, on the business sectors in which we have a policy interest. We seek to deregulate when it can be wisely done.
    Mrs. Browning: May I urge my hon. Friend to hasten any measures in the pipeline and to receive with an open mind representations made by those associated with tourism, which is extremely important in my constituency of Tiverton in Devon? Those associated with tourism and particularly small businesses feel that the burden of regulations still lies heavily on their shoulders.
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great persistence with which she follows the interests of the tourist elements in her constituency. My Department identified 91 regulations which impact damagingly on the tourist industry. We are pursuing those with each of the relevant Departments.
    Ms Mowlam: Although the Minister is not responsible for the regulation of newspaper pricing, he has regulatory responsibility for the standards of news and opinion throughout the United Kingdom. Given his Department's lead role in the Government's cross-media review, what will he have left to review if Murdoch's News Corporation succeeds in pushing some of the quality national and regional newspapers out of the market?
    Mr. Sproat: We shall continue to review those and all the other newspapers and aspects of the media that are left.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the depth of feeling of hoteliers in my constituency about excessive regulation? Will he take the opportunity to discuss those matters with the Eastbourne Hotels Association during his forthcoming and much expected visit to Eastbourne?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I look forward to my trip to Eastbourne. Much of the evidence that has helped us so much in our investigation has come from the hoteliers of Eastbourne and I look forward to renewing my acquaintance with them.

    Sports Council
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with other Departments about the restructuring of the Sports Council.
    Mr. Sproat: I have consulted those Departments on whose interests the review of the Sports Council touches. As the hon. Member will know, the Government announced their proposals for the future of the Sports Council on 8 July.
    Mr. Dowd: Further to the statement on 8 July, what did the Minister mean by the intention for the new Sports Council to withdraw from mass and formal participation and leisure activities? Will he explain the flagrant contradiction in the role of sport as outlined by the Secretary of State for Health in the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation"?
    Mr. Sproat: There is no contradistinction between what the two Departments say. I want to ensure that the Sports Council concentrates on sport. It has only some £49 million a year to spend on this, as opposed to the £1.25 billion that local authorities have. I want local authorities to concentrate on recreation and leisure and the Sports Council to concentrate on performance and excellence.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the Minister's proposals on the Sports Council, particularly giving the United Kingdom Sports Council a strategic role for a lead sport, but does he agree that local authorities and regional sports councils have a particularly important role to play in providing sports facilities for younger people?
    Mr. Sproat: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will have noticed that I am asking the ministerial nominees in future to attach themselves more closely to the Sports Council in the regions, and I look forward to receiving much more direct advice from the ministerial nominees in future.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome in general the announcement made by the Minister last Friday, when I was unavoidably absent? I particularly welcome the fact that professional sport is to be properly represented on the Sports Council, recognising that the distinction between amateur and professional is increasingly regarded as outdated. But where will responsibility for fighting the battle against drugs in sport rest? What importance does the Minister's Department attach to the continuation of the remarkably good work that has been done in the past in that respect by the existing Sports Council?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind welcome in general and for his comment on professional sport in particular. It is extremely important that members of regional sports councils and of the Great

    651
    Britain Sports Council, such as Mr. Trevor Brooking, will be there not just as outstanding individuals but as representatives of professional sport.
    As far as drugs are concerned, that is one of the first things that the new United Kingdom Sports Council will be looking at. We attach great importance to it. Our attitude to drugs must be seen to be the same throughout the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Pendry: Further to the original question, is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State said only last year that it was his aim to put the extension of individual access to heritage, culture and sport firmly at the top of his agenda? How can the Minister square that objective with a withdrawal from the promotion of mass participation in sport? To achieve his boss's objective, will he agree to a longer period of consultation than the 70-odd that days he is allowing, after which he might see what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at and agree with him?
    Mr. Sproat: No. The initial consultation that I proposed on Friday will be until 30 September; thereafter, we shall consider all the points made within that period. As for mass participation, of course we want to see as many people who wish to play sport and games playing them, but some aspects of that are better done by local authorities and some are better promoted by the Sports Council. We seek to achieve a sensible balance.

    Sport (Business Sponsorship)
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the value of business sponsorship of sport in the latest period for which information is available.
    Mr. Sproat: The total value of commercial sponsorship of sport in the United Kingdom in 1993 was estimated to be approximately £250 million.
    Mr. Colvin: I am sure that the House would agree that the introduction of the Sportsmatch sponsorship scheme for sport will be welcome, even if it is only half as successful as the business sponsor incentive scheme for the arts. Additional funding can be made available for improvements and safety features at sports grounds through the Football Trust. What plans do Her Majesty's Government have for extending the scope of the trust to include non-league football, rugby union, rugby league and cricket?
    Mr. Sproat: With regard to Sportsmatch, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, Sportsmatch has been responsible for pumping some £10 million extra into grass roots sports since it was set up in November 1992. As for widening the Football Trust's activities, clearly it is extremely important that we should try to spread the money and ensure that safety at sports grounds, which could apply to games such as rugby league, for instance, is as good as it is at football grounds. We are currently looking at ways in which to do just that.
    Mr. Flynn: What is the Minister's reaction to the plea from the Heritage Select Committee that advertising for tobacco should be banned? Does he not think it damaging for young children to see business sponsorship of tobacco displayed all over the uniforms and kits of sportsmen? Would it not be better to allow business sponsorship of
    652
    Members of Parliament to be displayed on our suits when we speak here so that the country can know who is filling the pockets of Members and so that the mother of Parliaments does not an the international reputation as the whore of Parliaments?
    Mr. Sproat: On the first point, I know roughly what the Select Committee said. I shall be studying the report over the coming few weeks and I shall be making an official response in due course.
    Mr. Jessel: When my hon. Friend studies the Select Committee report, will he pay particular attention to the point that sports sponsorship by tobacco companies tends to encourage young, impressionable and gullible people to identify healthy and glamorous activities such as sport and the hero figures in it with a habit that is likely to be lethal to some 8 or 9 per cent. of them, on present trends?
    Mr. Sproat: As I said in reply to the last supplementary question, these matters are well rehearsed in the Select Committee's report, and I look forward to examining them in detail. My hon. Friend will be aware that the current voluntary agreement provides that there shall be no sponsorship by tobacco companies of events that are attended by a majority of persons under the age of 18.

    Channel 4
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the future funding of Channel 4; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I have received letters from the chairman of Channel 4, the chairman of the ITV Association, two of the chairmen of ITV companies, more than 50 letters from hon. Members on behalf of independent programme production companies, and some letters directly from independent programme producers. On 21 June, I met the chairman and chief executive of Channel 4 and listened to their views. I shall consider all those views and those of other organisations with an interest.
    Ms Jackson: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but he did not mention a statement on the future funding of Channel 4. Will he assure the House and the country that the path of privatisation will not be pursued in that area and that the element of public service broadcasting which is integral to Channel 4 will be of overriding importance and will be protected, whatever form of future funding is eventually reached?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government considered the issue of the privatisation of Channel 4 in 1989, but decided against it, and we have seen no reason to change our mind since. The White Paper that the Government issued last Wednesday was an index of the Government's support for public sector broadcasting.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend consider—or perhaps recall—that most Conservative Members believe Channel 4 to be a most excellent channel, whose independence must be maintained? One of the problems that the channel faces is that it has a funding agreement which is out of date and does not take into account the success that it has subsequently achieved. Will my right

    653
    hon. Friend give assurances that that will be looked at carefully because we want a well-funded, independent Channel 4 to continue?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is almost as eloquent as Sir Michael Bishop and Michael Grade were when they came to see me on 21 June—and that is a high compliment. I said in response to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that I would consider the views that I had heard, and those of other organisations with an interest. That I will do.

    Arts (Disabled People)
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had recently with organisations for the disabled about support for the arts.
    Mr. Sproat: My Department is in regular contact with organisations representing the interests of disabled people in the arts sector; among them, I have just announced increased funding of £43,000 to the ADAPT trust for this year. The Arts Council and the regional arts boards together spend more than £1.5 million on arts and disability each year.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that the Arts Council disability unit is due to be scrapped? Following the demise of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, this is another slap in the face for disabled people. The unit cost £50,000 to run. Will he consider making representations to the Arts Council, or providing extra resources for the council, to force it into keeping the unit going?
    Mr. Sproat: That is, of course, a decision for the Arts Council, but I think that the hon. Lady has got it wrong. The Arts Council used to have a special unit which did nothing but look at the needs of disabled persons, of women and of ethnic minorities. It decided to scrap the unit and to share the responsibility for safeguarding those interests right across the council's work. That was the Arts Council's decision, but it seemed sensible to me.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that words come cheap, and that the important point is that the Government have more than trebled provision for the disabled in real terms? We can take the credit for that, because we have done what the Labour party failed to do.
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. As so often, my hon. Friend is exactly right.

    Radio 4
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received during his review of the BBC charter regarding maintaining Radio 4 on the long-wave network.
    Mr. Brooke: More than 1,700 since October 1992, but most of them were not linked to the BBC's future after 1996.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the variability of the Radio 4 FM frequency and how easily it can be interrupted? If I open my fridge door at home, reception ceases altogether. With that in mind, does he agree that more listeners would be better served if the usual Radio 4 programmes were broadcast on long wave and extended sports programmes on the FM frequency?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me outline notice of the subject that she wished to raise and I am sorry that she has difficulties receiving Radio 4 on FM, not least because of her fridge door. FM reception depends largely on having a line of sight from the receiving aerial to the transmitter. Rooftop antennae are recommended wherever possible, but I recognise that many listeners prefer to use portable receivers, even though reception is generally poorer on such equipment.
    The BBC continues to build new FM transmitters to improve reception of its services. The building programme is subject to available resources and competing engineering priorities. However, the shortage of frequencies and the geography of the local terrain do not make it easy to read all areas easily. Although my hon. Friend criticises the BBC for scheduling extended sports coverage and, in particular, "Test Match Special" on Radio 4 long wave, it is for the BBC to decide what to broadcast on the frequencies available to it.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he quite enjoys answering questions of that kind about the regulatory framework for the BBC because it is a proper, democratic regulation about which we can ask questions in Parliament? Does he look forward, as I do, to the day when the quality and variety of programming on satellite and cable will be similarly subject to a sensible, if arm's-length, regulatory framework by the democratic process to ensure proper quality of programmes?
    Mr. Brooke: The simplest answer is that I always enjoy answering questions from the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the subject that he raises is currently under review.
    Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fair bet that the contents of the fridge belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) would frequently be better than the contents of radio programmes?
    Mr. Brooke: I am diffident about saying this, but I am not wholly familiar with the contents of my hon. Friend's fridge.
    Mr. Corbett: Is the Secretary of State aware that the seemingly random tinkering with programmes between Radio 4 FM and long wave and Radio 5 Live confuses listeners and has lessened live coverage of what goes on in this place? Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the chairman and governors of the BBC of the corporation's duty to broadcast a day-by-day impartial account of events here? Does he agree that the fact that newspaper reporting of Parliament has drastically lessened makes as-it-happens coverage all the more important?
    Mr. Brooke: As we indicated in the White Paper last week, we believe that the BBC should provide published objectives for each of its radio services and that the character of its services should not be changed without giving audiences an opportunity to comment on the proposals. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the potential confusion that can arise.

    British Broadcasting Corporation
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future of the BBC.
    Mr. Brooke: I published a White Paper on 6 July.
    Mr. Coombs: I thank my right hon. Friend for his pre-emptive strike on Wednesday against my question. I warmly welcome the White Paper, as I believe that most people have done since it was published. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC will have an increasingly difficult position to maintain as a broadcasting corporation in an increasingly narrow casting world? What does he see as his Department's role in encouraging and helping the BBC to maintain its pre-eminent position in world television and radio?
    Mr. Brooke: The White Paper was certainly a response to the world in which the BBC will find itself, domestically as well as internationally. The best contribution that any Government can make to the BBC is to reinforce its self-confidence, and that is what we did last Wednesday.
    Mr. Sheldon: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what he did last Wednesday. Will he pay tribute to Maramaduke Hussey and Lord Barnett, who, over a long period, resisted the attempts by the then Prime Minister to disband the real and essential work of the BBC and who, by playing the role of Sheherazade as they did, kept the conversation and discussion going until such time as the right hon. Gentleman was able to produce the results that he did last Wednesday?
    Mr. Brooke: Some of what the right hon. Gentleman said probably belongs more to the historians than either to him or to me. I pay tribute to the present chairman and the former deputy chairman for the manner in which they managed the changes that have occurred in the BBC. While, perfectly properly, compliments have been paid to the director-general in the aftermath of the White Paper, I think that similar compliments might be paid to the govenors.

    Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the latest figures from the business sponsorship incentive scheme.
    Mr. Sproat: The business sponsorship incentive scheme is continuing to be remarkably successful in encouraging businesses to sponsor the arts. Since its inception in October 1984, the scheme has attracted almost £74 million in new money for the arts.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent answer. Can the principles that are being applied for Sportsmatch to get finances also be used for heritage projects? I have in mind the preservation of steam railways, such as that at Swanage, or tall ships, such as the 70 that will come out of Weymouth on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Many charities spend a great deal of money keeping those in working order for, in particular, young and disabled people.
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. He could play his part in encouraging the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts to set up more offices around the country so as to encourage more businesses to participate. I am pleased that ABSA recently opened a new office in Birmingham. It also opened a new office in Halifax in June 1992, which has led to the amount of business sponsorship for the arts since then rising by no less than 68 per cent.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister will be aware that preserving industrial heritage is extremely expensive, so what he has just said is welcome. Will he make it his task to encourage business to support that sort of heritage, because many of the museums will go out of business if they cannot find sufficient resources to survive?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I know that he will welcome the fact that the Department played some part in ensuring that an additional £300,000 was allocated to the Yorkshire mining museum the other day, which will help to keep that important part of Britain's industrial heritage in being.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement and the fact that his Department will find £4.8 million this year for that scheme, which is cash-limited. Will he give sympathetic consideration to the problems of the Cirencester festival, about which I have corresponded with my hon. Friend, which does have business sponsorship, but, because the scheme is cash-limited, is not eligible for money from it this year?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We do everything possible to keep raising the funding, which currently stands at £4.8 million. As he knows, we increased it by 10 per cent. last time. If he cares to write to me, I will certainly look again at the details of the scheme that he mentioned.

    Opera Companies
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the total number of opera performances and the total attendances for companies supported by the Arts Council in 1983–84 and 1993–94.
    Mr. Brooke: In 1983–84, the total number of performances and the total attendances for the major opera companies supported by the Arts Council were 611 and 875,853 respectively. In 1993–94, those figures rose to 690 performances and 904,069 attendances.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the loss of opera companies over the past decade, those increases in figures show the strength of our resident opera companies? Are not the restrictions on Arts Council funding a threat to their quality? Will he ensure that if the Government go ahead in getting rid of some of the authorities that support opera companies, the Department will put a scheme in place to ensure that funds are available?
    Mr. Brooke: My answer referred to major companies. There has been a burgeoning of opera in the middle scale, with 50 companies now in existence. Together with small-scale organisations such as Pimlico Opera, those opera companies are reaching new audiences in a large number of venues that are unable to host larger-scale productions.
    The comparable funding for the other companies from the Arts Council—I am including Scotland and Wales—was £16.5 million in 1983–84 and more than £38 million in 1994–95. Therefore, although funding decisions are for the Arts Council, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there has been a steady increase in public funding.
    Mr. Rowe: Is not it an extraordinary tribute to the astonishing increase in the quality of orchestral music and

    657
    operatic singers music that so many people are now interested in opera? Given that solid base, will my right hon. Friend ensure that producers of publicly supported operas will use as much ingenuity in staging economical productions as they do when seeking subsidies?
    Mr. Brooke: My experience of companies funded by the Arts Council is that they concentrate on doing that which my hon. Friend suggested across the whole range of arts, and that the practice is not confined to opera.

    Sport (Business Sponsorship)
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the Sportsmatch scheme to promote business sponsorship of sport.
    Mr. Sproat: I receive a number of letters from hon. Members and others regarding individual applications for Sportsmatch awards, but have not received any other representations recently.
    Mr. Lord: Recently, I had the honour to perform the turf-cutting ceremony for new squash courts in the village of Debenham in Suffolk. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the scheme, which is bringing enthusiasm to businesses and sports in all areas but particularly to rural areas such as my constituency, which badly need sports facilities. Will my hon. Friend give the scheme maximum publicity?
    Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is a splendid scheme, and it has been responsible for putting an extra £10 million into grass roots sports. It does so at minimum overheads of 10 per cent., which is something that other organisations might consider. I will certainly do as my hon. Friend suggests.

    National Lottery
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he now expects the first tickets for the national lottery to be sold.
    Mr. Brooke: The Director-General of the National Lottery announced on 25 May that he had selected the Camelot Group plc to run the national lottery. I understand that Camelot will launch the national lottery with an on-line lotto game in November 1994. The date when tickets will go on sale has not been decided.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to a recent report in the Financial Times, part of the Camelot consortium, named G-Tech, is considering using the UK lottery network in a bid for a national benefits distribution contract? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), the Director-General of Oflot confessed that he had not known of that interest of G-Tech until he read about it in the press? Will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking now that he will not allow Camelot or any part of it to make such use of the UK lottery network?
    Mr. Brooke: That question is probably as much for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services as for me. I did see the report, and it is a subject on which I have already asked questions.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the operation of the national lottery will have an effect on pools companies? Will he carefully examine ways in which we could level up the marketing activities of pools companies with those of the national lottery, bearing in mind the excellent work done by the Football Trust? Will my right hon. Friend investigate that matter, so that a decision on advertising and other factors will be based on a level playing field?
    Mr. Brooke: The levelling up that my hon. Friend described was widely discussed when the National Lottery etc. Bill went through the House, and a series of concessions were made to pools companies at that stage—sufficient to secure all-party support when the Bill received its Third Reading. The matter has already been widely considered, but I notice that it has re-emerged.

    Regional Film Production
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new proposals he has to encourage television and film productions in the regions.
    Mr. Brooke: Following the round of consultations that I held last year with different sectors of the film industry, I am considering a number of proposals aimed at encouraging investment in British film production. I will announce the Government's conclusions in due course. However, it is for individual film and television producers to decide where they wish to make their films or programmes, and it would be inappropriate for the Government to offer financial or other inducements favouring one region over another.
    Ms Quin: In his consultations, did the Secretary of State come to realise the concern that exists in the regions and in Britain as a whole about the way in which we seem to be losing out, in film opportunities, to other parts of Europe? For example, Scotland lost a film to Ireland and a film about Cornwall was shot in North Rhine-Westphalia because of German support for the film industry. Does the Minister believe that there should be roughly equal terms for film-making throughout Europe?
    Mr. Brooke: I am aware of a number of the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned. I am glad to say that last year the number of films made in this country increased and the papers this very weekend contained news of the massive recruitment of extras in the Fort William area to make one film and in Barmouth, Wales for yet another forthcoming production. I agree with the hon. Lady, however, that, just as we have no interest in asserting one region over another within the United Kingdom, it would be desirable if that did not happen in Europe either.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Archbishops' Commission
    Dr. Spink: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the Church Commissioners' response to the recommendations of the Archbishops' Commission on the organisation of the Church of England.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Turnbull Commission is not expected to report before summer 1995. The Church Commissioners stand ready, with an open mind, to respond to its recommendations.
    Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he welcome the clarification by Prince Charles, reported in The Times today, that he would not wish to change the coronation oath and that he supports the establishment of the Church of England? In view of the General Synod's vote in York today on the disestablishment of that Church, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be regrettable if the Church were seen to be trying to distance itself from moral issues, society and even politics at this time when we need it so much?
    Mr. Alison: Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted to hear of the positive endorsement by the Prince of Wales of establishment for the Church of England. I very much hope that that Church, which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is debating those issues in York at its General Synod, will endorse the attitude of the Prince of Wales and will underline and support the existing close and constructive links between Church and state, which bring appreciable benefits, both spiritual and material, to both communities.

    Funeral Fees
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the future level of clergy fees for funerals and their relationship to the Church Commissioners' contribution to the overall stipend.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners have prepared a draft parochial fees order, to take effect from 1 January 1995, which will be presented to the General Synod today and which, it is believed, will result in fees representing a more realistic contribution to the costs of the Church. Fees payable to the clergy fund about 7 per cent. of the total stipend bill, but that bears no direct relationship to the annual sums that the commissioners make available towards stipends.
    Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has not told the House the position, which is that the proposal means that fees for funerals are likely to increase by three times, from £50 to £150, which is nothing short of appalling for many poor parishioners. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear to the Church that it is not right that, because of the Church Commissioners' mistakes, the poorest in society should be charged more to bury their dead?
    Mr. Alison: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's figures. Fees are due to increase, on average, by 28 per cent. The total fee for a funeral service is set to rise from £43 to £55. The fee for a burial in a churchyard is significantly less than that for a burial in a local authority cemetery.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that clergymen will always take into account the needs of poor people, whether in regard to fees for funerals or to anything else? Will he also ensure that clergymen conducting funerals, especially on a conveyor basis at
    660
    crematoriums, know the sex of the person who is being buried and take more care to ensure that the service is genuinely spiritual, which is what it is intended to be, but so often is not?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend has presented a horrific scenario involving "conveyor belts" at crematoriums. If he is prepared to carry out a personal survey of crematoriums throughout the metropolis and let me have a report, I shall be glad to arrange for a proper evaluation of the survey.

    Ordination Of Women
    Mr. Frank Field: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what cost has been incurred so far and what is the estimated cost 20 years hence of the compensation measures following the ordination of women Measures.
    Mr. Alison: The total cost of the financial provision over the next 10 years for the number of clergy expected to have resigned by the end of this month—July 1994—is estimated to be £7.5 million. We are unable to estimate the total cost over 20 years, as that will depend on how many clergy have resigned by the year 2004.
    Mr. Field: Will the £7.5 million—if that figure is accurate—be paid by the commissioners or by individual dioceses?
    Mr. Alison: That will depend on the extent to which it becomes a real cost. The sums expended will naturally result in sums being saved, because stipends will no longer be payable to those who have resigned. We shall have to make a precise assessment of the net position, but the contribution made by the Church Commissioners to all the dioceses is viewed as a global entity. I think that it would be impossible to specify the net figure that we are discussing within that entity.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Public Record Office
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the Government's policy concerning charging for access to the Public Record Office.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Public Record Office recently completed its report on its services and charges. The Lord Chancellor will make a decision about the report's recommendations in the autumn, when he has considered the views of his advisory council on public records.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend place in the Library a copy of the survey of users of the Public Record Office, so that it is available to right hon. and hon. Members? Will he and the Lord Chancellor continue to bear in mind the fact that many scholars and other users of the public records have low incomes, and should not be inconvenienced by the prospect of a high charge?
    Mr. Taylor: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that copies of the main report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

    Judicial Independence
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the independence of the judiciary.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental constitutional principle. The Lord Chancellor is concerned at all times to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and the judicial process.
    Mr. Hutton: How can that statement be reconciled with the treatment earlier this year of Mr. Justice Wood, who was effectively forced to resign from the Bench after the Lord Chancellor's Department attempted to interfere directly with the operation of the employment appeals tribunal? Does not that prove—at least in respect of that case—that the Government's commitment to the independence of the judiciary is something of a sham?
    Mr. Taylor: Certainly not. The Lord Chancellor was endeavouring to ensure that procedures put in place by this honourable House were followed by the tribunal in England and in Wales, as well as in Scotland. The Lord Chancellor made a full statement about the matter during a debate in the other place on 27 April; I recommend the Hansard report of that debate.
    Mr. Tracey: I am sure that every hon. Member strongly supports the independence of the judiciary. Will my hon. Friend say something about arranging more conferences on sentencing, especially for magistrates, so that magistrates courts do not reach so many of the disparate decisions that throw the whole Bench into confusion and disrespect?
    Mr. Taylor: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Lord Chancellor's Department gives judicial training the highest priority, as does the Lord Chancellor himself. We strongly support and encourage the work of the Judicial Studies Board, and of magistrates benches which arrange training for themselves.
    Mr. Boateng: If the Minister and the Lord Chancellor are so concerned about judicial independence, will he tell the House why he proposes, in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, to enable industrial tribunals and social security tribunals to be put into the private sector? What possible benefit will that bring to the public? How can spending more than £500,000 in so doing be justified, and what safeguards will then exist for the independence of the judiciary?
    Mr. Taylor: The technical scope of the legislation is narrow in respect of judicial functions. The Government have already amended it to acknowledge the constitutional position of judicial independence and they remain adamant that they will do nothing, whether in the context of the Bill or otherwise, that might erode the independence or probity of the judicial process.

    Civil Litigation
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the cost of civil litigation.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor is committed to reducing the cost of civil litigation, both to the parties involved and to the taxpayer. That commitment
    662
    is demonstrated by the on-going implementation of the civil justice review and the establishment of Lord Woolf s review.
    Mr. Ottaway: I welcome that reply, particularly as it is only a few weeks since the Master of the Rolls described the high cost of civil litigation as a cancer at the heart of the British judicial system. Is not the best way to reduce that high cost to lower lawyers' fees? To that extent, should not we generate a real market in lawyers' fees by insisting that they publish their fees? Would not it be in the public interest for large partnerships, which turn over hundreds of millions of pounds a year, to publish their accounts?
    Mr. Taylor: Legal fees are a major factor in the high cost of litigation. My hon. Friend's proposal about publishing accounts is extremely interesting and the Law Society would find it interesting too, coming as it does from my hon. Friend, with all his commercial legal experience.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the legal aid programme in civil cases.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor's Department is conducting a fundamental review of expenditure. That will cover expenditure in publicly funded legal services.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that the House is greatly concerned about the number of people who clearly should not receive legal aid under the civil list, as they have no right to do so, but who receive large sums of taxpayers' money to pursue or defend actions? Will the Minister ensure that an immediate review is conducted into the number of people receiving legal aid for civil cases when they should not be doing so? The public purse should not be paying for it.
    Mr. Taylor: The Lord Chancellor's Department is conducting a fundamental review, which will cover the areas to which my hon. Friend refers. The issues that he raises are of great importance. As Members of Parliament, we all have a part to play in encouraging our constituents to complain if they think that there is a case where legal aid has been unmerited. Anyone can complain to the Legal Aid Board, and I would encourage people to do so.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister take the opportunity to deplore the action of Messrs Simmons and Simmons, the solicitors acting on behalf of the Sheik of Abu Dhabi, who have written to the Legal Aid Board to prevent former BCCI employees from obtaining legal aid? Is not it wrong that solicitors acting for a foreign Government should seek to deny British citizens the right to legal aid?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the solicitors' profession is independent and self-regulating, but there are mechanisms for complaints about solicitors' work and the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with those mechanisms.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I understood that legal aid was given only to those who required assistance and who could not afford litigation without it. I find it astonishing that in

    663
    England it can be given, with impunity, to millionaires. Will the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General consider the matter, because it is a wrong on the public that the poor should pay for the rich to litigate?
    Mr. Taylor: Anyone litigating in the English courts is entitled to legal aid, regardless of nationality, subject to a test of means and of the merits of the case. The Legal Aid Board is required by regulation to disregard in its means assessment of an application for legal aid all assets that are the subject matter of the dispute. That is because those assets cannot be considered the resources of the applicant while the ownership is in dispute. I am aware of the cases that have caused great concern. The Legal Aid Board is looking into them, and so will the Lord Chancellor and I.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Disestablishment
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received since 29 June on the financial consequences of disestablishment of the Church.
    Mr. Alison: None.
    Mr. Barnes: It is a bit surprising that there was not one letter, following Jonathan Dimbleby's interview with the Prince of Wales—one from the Prince himself. He obviously decided that he would write to the archbishop instead, withdrawing his initial position. Is not it a good idea that the Church should be disestablished? That would mean that everyone with different faiths and beliefs, and those with none, could begin to be considered within the state. It would be a particularly good idea for Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, who could then see that the British state did not have an established church.
    Mr. Alison: I do not think that any non-Anglican Church in the British Isles, in England and in Wales or in the United Kingdom is in any way disadvantaged by the establishment of the Church of England. On the contrary, all derive benefit from the close relationship with an historic and traditional source of Christian truth and teaching, which is orthodox and catholic in its sweep and embrace, and which is shared, endorsed and propagated by the Churches of every non-Anglican denomination in the British Isles.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever view one might take about the present soundness or doctrinal orthodoxy of the leadership of the Church of England, with an established Church, every English person has, as an automatic birthright, the right to belong to the Church of England? That is an extraordinary thing and if it were taken away by some of the more liberally persuaded people in the Church of England, a great national Church would be turned into nothing more than a tiny sect.
    Mr. Alison: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It must be borne in mind that there are probably as many communicant Anglicans in the House of Commons as there are members of the House of Laity in the General Synod. To that extent, Parliament is much more accessible to those whom one might call fellow travellers, who have sympathy with the Church of England. It is to the House of
    664
    Commons—to colleagues here—that they look instinctively to express their views, their aspirations and their fears about the Church of England.

    Churches (Pit Villages)
    Mr. Enright: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what capital funds have been set aside to assist in church regeneration programmes in small pit villages.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners' primary duty is to manage their assets for the benefit of the clergy, both serving and retired. There are therefore no funds set aside specifically for the purpose to which the question refers, although our financial support for the clergy is concentrated on the needier dioceses—for example, Wakefield, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency—where such villages are often situated.
    Mr. Enright: Does not the right hon. Gentleman find it odd that a small congregation in Kinsley, which has inherited a down-at-heel, broken-down church and is trying to put it to rights, is having immense difficulty in getting funds from the Church while it sees funds easily going to those who have opposed the ordination of women? Is not there some imbalance there?
    Mr. Alison: It is always possible to find one head of expenditure which sits uneasily with other heads of disbursement or with other heads of cost. Looking at the picture in the round, it is true to say that as much money as possible is allocated to poorer dioceses, such as the diocese of Wakefield, to help churches such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I give him a personal undertaking, especially in the light of our brief exchange in the Tea Room earlier, that I shall approach the Bishop of Wakefield, if the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the church with which he is particularly concerned, to see whether we can help in the obviously strained situation in the village which the hon. Gentleman has described.

    Flying Bishops
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the pay and emoluments of flying bishops; from what date payments will be made; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The Bishop of Beverley and the Bishop of Ebbsfleet took up their appointments as provincial episcopal visitors on 7 March and 29 April respectively. Their stipends are £19,895 a year and are in line with those paid to suffragan bishops. They are also provided with housing.
    Mr. Greenway: Will the flying bishops have a role in administering to the 139 clergymen who have left the Church of England following the decision to ordain women? How many more ordained clergymen are expected to follow them? Will those bishops, like all other bishops, have a relationship with members of the royal family?
    Mr. Alison: Links with the royal family are not likely to arise in the case of the two provincial visitors. Some 66 clergy may be thinking of leaving the Church of England,

    665
    in addition to the 160 who will have resigned by the end of July. I am quite certain that those 66 who have not yet
    666
    resigned but are thinking of doing so will be having interviews and taking pastoral advice from the two provincial bishops to whom I have referred.

Economic Summit (Naples)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Naples summit of 8 to 10 July, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have placed the communiqué of the seven-nation economic summit and the chairman's statement on the eight-nation political summit in the Library of the House.
The summit process is changing in two important ways. In 1991, I invited the then Soviet leader to join the seven for a meeting after the London summit. This practice was continued in 1992 and again in Tokyo last year. I discussed a new format with President Yeltsin in February. That was to invite Russia to become a full and equal partner in our political meeting. That was accepted and President Yeltsin's involvement brought an extra dimension to the political aspects of the summit. He made it clear that Russia will co-operate closely on the most difficult international problems, from Bosnia to North Korea; and he was warmly welcomed in that spirit.
The second change is that the summits are returning to the informality and free debate which characterised the early meetings 20 years ago. The move away from set-piece speeches and pre-scripted discussions made it the most wide-ranging summit which I have attended. We shall allow even more time for unscripted discussions next year at Halifax.
We spent some time discussing international institutions. Many of the main world bodies—the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions, for example—have been with us for nearly half a century. The world has changed enormously in that period and so have some, but not all, of our institutions. For example, the World Trade Organisation will take over as a permanent body in place of GATT, itself originally a temporary structure. But, generally, we concluded that we should think about further changes to those institutions which may be needed in the future. We need to decide how best to meet the huge tasks confronting the different parts of the United Nations and how to respond to new economic problems. We may need to revitalise those institutions. We shall all consider that between now and the summit at Halifax next year. If we conclude that changes are necessary, we shall begin the process of bringing them about. The summit countries alone cannot make those changes, but it is right for us to ask whether they may be necessary.
On economic matters, the summit built on the G7 countries jobs conference held in Detroit earlier this year. The world economy is now emerging from recession. At Naples, there was wide agreement on the policies that the G7 countries now need to pursue: free trade, flexible labour markets, deregulation, policies that help and encourage unemployed people back in to work, and investment in education and training. Those themes will be familiar to the House, because they precisely match the policies that this Government have been pursuing. They were all warmly endorsed by the G7.
Further trade liberalisation is an important part of the G7's strategy. The completion of the Uruguay round was a significant achievement that will increase trade and growth right around the world. We need the various
668
agreements to be ratified by the end of this year. Thereafter, we should consider further initiatives on trade and on economic liberalisation.
The summit proposed additional debt relief for the poorest countries. That is something I have long been pressing for. At Naples, we agreed on two specific measures to help those countries facing special difficulties: first, more help with debt payments, taking the level of relief above 50 per cent.—to two-thirds and perhaps beyond; and, secondly, reductions in the stock of debt. We also agreed to explore ways of getting the international financial institutions to use their resources more effectively to help the poorest and most indebted countries.
Since I introduced the Trinidad terms initiative four years ago, 22 countries have benefited, with nearly $3 billion of debts written off thus far. The new proposals agreed at Naples will provide further help to lift a burden from some of the world's poorest countries.
We urged that there should be more help for the Palestinian authority, which is setting up an entirely new administration in Gaza and Jericho and needs to encourage new enterprises. Britain is contributing £75 million, bilaterally and multilaterally, over three years, including the extra help for running costs and technical assistance announced last week.
Likewise, in South Africa, Britain has allocated £100 million to transitional aid over the next three years. South Africa's re-entry into the economic mainstream could do much to revitalise southern and central Africa.
We also spent some time on Ukraine, where there is an evident need to restructure the economy. Given her position and size, it is important to have both a stable and prosperous Ukraine. The summit countries and the international financial institutions are keen to help that process, which must include reform of the energy sector. We are putting forward an action plan to close the Chernobyl nuclear plant, where there are continuing worries about the risk of another accident. Our plan will require reform by the Ukrainians as well as providing significant financial help from the west. We agreed also to replenish the nuclear safety account.
On the environment, the G7 were concerned about the slow progress in meeting the commitments made at the Earth summit in Rio, and agreed to speed this up. Britain itself has fully met her commitments under the action plan agreed after Rio by the Group of Seven. We have published the plans required under the climate change convention. We all agreed to report further progress at next year's G7 summit.
At the Commonwealth conference last year and the European Council in Corfu, I argued for more action by Governments to oppose transnational crime, drug trafficking and money laundering. This approach was strongly supported at Naples. Where necessary, we are urging countries around the world to introduce legislation to prevent money laundering.
Bosnia was discussed in my bilateral meetings with both the Russian and American Presidents and, of course, at the political summit itself.
Collectively and individually, our Governments will urge the parties to accept the Contact Group's settlement proposal. We are completely united on that point. There is a risk of a wider and more intense conflict if this opportunity for peace is not taken. Later this week my right

669
hon Friend the Foreign Secretary, together with the French Foreign Minister, will visit the former Yugoslavia to impress this point on the parties.
We need assurances about North Korea's nuclear programme, including compliance with the nonproliferation treaty and with International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The summit supported the efforts of the United States and of South Korea to develop a dialogue with the north, and I hope that they will be resumed when North Korea has a new leader.
In Yemen, the recent, brutal civil war has left fears about the country's future stability. Iraq's support for the north has caused justifiable concern to our friends in Saudi Arabia and Oman, both of which border Yemen. The summit called on the Yemeni authorities to resolve internal difficulties without repression. We were concerned that Yemen would become a new source of instability in the region.
I have highlighted the key political and economic points of what was effectively two summits in one. Summitry has proliferated over the past 20 years. I believe that we need a critical approach to make the best use of these occasions. Many worthwhile changes are now taking effect, and the Naples meeting was much more valuable as a result. I commend the outcome of the summit to the House.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: There is much in the communiqué that we welcome, and much on which the Prime Minister touched only lightly, if at all. In particular, we welcome the communiqué's strong emphasis on the need for action to create jobs, to promote growth and the increased wealth that that creates; to tackle the damage being done to our environment and especially the problem of Chernobyl, to which the Prime Minister referred, and to work with the Ukraine to remove its nuclear stockpile. I join the Prime Minister in urging acceptance of the settlement proposals for Bosnia since, unsatisfactory though some may think them, continued conflict could surely only be worse.
We were also pleased to see in the communiqué that a start is being made on the reform and modernisation of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. After talking about third-world debt relief on Trinidad terms for four years, it may actually begin to happen on a wider basis.
However, does the Prime Minister acknowledge that for many in the developing world, money will still just be going around in circles with money freed by bilateral debt relief going to the World bank or the IMF instead unless steps are taken towards multilateral debt relief, building on the approach already adopted?
Although the Prime Minister spoke this morning of the advantages of increased international trade, does he accept that unless we find some way of oiling the financial wheels and promoting international support for the economic reconstruction and development to which he referred—in South Africa, the middle east as well as in eastern Europe—it simply will not happen?
We welcome the reference in the communiqué to the fresh allocation of special drawing rights for which the IMF and the new members from eastern Europe have called. However, can the Prime Minister tell us anything
670
about the time scale for that decision and what discussions were held on other measures, perhaps, as in the past, financed from IMF gold stocks?
Will the role of the G8 be reviewed alongside the IMF and the World bank, as John Smith urged earlier this year, exploring the idea of an Economic Council of the United Nations alongside the Security Council and drawing in therefore, as the G8 at present fails to, other major economic players such as China and South America?
The Prime Minister's principal contention in what he said about the economic summit is that the rest of the world is following Britain's lead and that this because of our proven economic superiority. I can only describe that observation as self-deluding since it is supported neither by the words of the communiqué—and I urge Conservative Members to read the communiqué in the Library—nor by the facts.
As anyone who reads the communiqué will discover, it calls for the co-ordinated pursuit of growth, job creation, skills enhancement, support for innovation and infrastructural renewal. Those are all Labour party policies since before the last election and they were all denounced by the Prime Minister as irrelevant and wrong. That leads one to wonder why he signed a communiqué which calls for precisely those measures.
The Prime Minister should recognise that, if those words in the communiqué that he signed are to be more than empty words, a complete change of British Government policy will be required. Is it not the case that, far from endorsing the Government's recipe of never-ending deregulation and lower wages, in the discussions the American Secretary of Labour called it
"part of the problem not part of the solution"—
and that, although there is a call in the summit communiqué to reduce employment costs, this Government have increased them by pushing up national insurance and loading sick pay costs on employers?
The Prime Minister must also be aware that the truth is that, while all our competitors are keeping, and in some cases increasing, minimum wage protection—for example, in France and in some parts of the United States—and bringing measures like extra family leave into train, their record on growth, skills and job creation is better than ours.
Is not the real message of the communiqué that our more successful rivals are pursuing, not the policies of this Government, but the path that we advocate? The Prime Minister and his colleagues show every sign of failing, yet again, to understand why they are failing Britain.
The Prime Minister: I must say that that was a very novel interpretation, on which I shall comment in a few moments.
I welcome the support that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) offered on a number of proposals in the communiqué relating to jobs, energy, environmental matters and on the approach that we are proposing on Bosnia. I also welcome what she said about the Trinidad terms. A substantial amount of debt has been written off already, but there is further to go. Some countries have been resistant to implementing the Trinidad terms, but I think that the Paris Club can now move ahead as a result of the agreement reached at the G7 in the past few days. That will be immensely helpful to many poor countries.
As the right hon. Lady intimated, there are other ways of helping poor countries. It was rather masked in the

671
arcane language of the communiqué, but we looked at using the IMF's gold stocks to assist not only the very poorest countries in the world, but areas such as Gaza and South Africa, where there is a self-evident need for help. That is a wise way for us to proceed. In terms of job creation in those countries, the opening of markets, the liberalisation of trade and the elimination of debt will all provide an incentive for growth that will show within those countries—providing we are able to proceed with those proposals.
The right hon. Lady then moved on to other matters and quoted rather selectively from the communiqué. Atlas, she missed some points, such as a number of structural measures to reduce labour rigidities, which add to employment costs or deter job creation, eliminate excessive regulations, which will ensure that indirect costs of employment are reduced where possible, and to pursue active labour market policies. The right hon. Lady's eyes apparently skimmed past a range of other things as she quoted from the communiqué. If she thinks that all those measures are Labour party policies, my hon. Friends and I will be very pleased to have learnt, at last, what it is that the Labour party stands for in terms of economic policies.
As for the right hon. Lady's concluding remarks about the relative performance of the United Kingdom, that is an old ground of dispute between us. I do not agree with her interpretation, because there is no doubt that our country is leading the European Community out of recession—there can be no doubt about that, because our growth this year is likely to be twice as high as that of any other European Community country. I find it astonishing that, when this country is doing well and companies and the work force are doing well, that is something that the Opposition appear to regret deeply. I am sorry to learn that.
I must tell the right hon. Lady that we are leading the country and Europe out of recession. It is extremely good news for the world economy that the American growth now exists, that the Germans are now out of recession and that the G7 as a whole is moving back into growth by following the sort of policies that have brought this country out of recession, and not the policies that the Opposition advocate, which would take it straight back into recession.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he did an excellent and workmanlike job for Britain at the Naples summit? He is to be congratulated on it. Like my right hon. Friend, I hope very much that the Contact Group will succeed in bringing peace of some kind to Bosnia. Can he explain why the Serb Bosnians should cease their fighting, after a 100-year ambition to expand their areas of control, when they have an unending supply of arms and equipment from Serbia proper? Has not the time come, particularly as Mr. Yeltsin is more on side now, to strengthen the embargo against Serbia proper in all sorts of ways? That would bring home to the Serbians and Serbian Bosnians that they cannot go on defying world opinion and that they must come to the peace table with everyone else.
The Prime Minister: In his last few words, my right hon. Friend set out clearly the message which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister will take to the Serbs in the course of the next few days. It must be made clear to Serbia that Serbia and the next generation of Serbians have no future unless they are prepared to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to the
672
world community. They cannot continue as they are and they can certainly expect no relaxation of sanctions or any international help until and unless they reach an agreement that will bring the fighting to an end.
For some time, both the Serbians and, on occasion, other parties have moved away from the settlement that could have been reached in the belief that, if they waited, they would get a better deal in the future. There is now no doubt that the international community is determined to do whatever it can to enforce a settlement. I find it striking that each of the political heads of the G8, including the President of Russia, were determined that now was the opportunity to put every conceivable pressure on all the parties to come to a satisfactory settlement.
Sir David Steel: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the forthcoming mission of the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Secretary, backed by President Yeltsin, to try to persuade the warring parties in Bosnia that they must accept the peace settlement, however imperfect, deserves the united support of this House?
On the economic section of the communiqué, will the Prime Minister forgive me if I do not quote bits of Liberal Democrat policy in its support, following the pattern already set? On the institutional changes contemplated in the world financial bodies, will he assure us that he will also look at their lack of accountability to member Governments and member Parliaments for the policies that they pursue?
Finally, does the Prime Minister accept that, although the communiqué is less specific than his statement, we welcome the new debt relief proposals that he has achieved? He will know that the all-party Africa caucus lobbied the Chancellor before the meeting, and he saw us last year. We are deeply grateful for the progress that has been made. It will certainly bring widespread relief to at least six of the poorest countries in Africa.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his final point. As soon as we have moved a little further with debt relief, we need to look again at the countries that are eligible for it. Some countries fall on just the wrong side of the debt relief line currently available under the Trinidad terms, but those countries may be helped by the point which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked me about—the proceeds of institutional gold sales by the IMF. That would not necessarily be restricted to Trinidad terms countries.
On the institutional changes, accountability certainly needs to be examined. That is perfectly clear. The underlying reason for that examination is simply to determine whether, after so many years, the institutions themselves are still relevant to the problems that are likely to face us in the next 10 or 15 years. By "institutions", I Mean not only the Bretton Woods institutions—the IMF and the World bank—but we need also to look at the United Nations, the development of NATO in the light of "Partnership for Peace", and the enlargement of the European Union, as well as the changes that we have already seen with GATT becoming the World Trade Organisation. Those are not matters which the G7 can determine but, in all those institutions, the G7 countries are leading members.
If we decide that there needs to be some reform, at that stage we shall wish to consult other members of those

673
institutions in an attempt to bring about the reform. But I emphasise that the G7 does not see itself as a directorate that can impose those changes on the institutions. We are simply making the point that now is the time to examine them to see what changes are necessary.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Bosnia and I am grateful for his support for the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members seek to question the Prime Minister. I am now looking for one brisk question each and, if I may, brisk answers.
Sir Peter Emery: Was further consideration given to the extension of the non-proliferation treaty to those countries that have not signed it? Will Japan support any action that might be taken against North Korea if the situation deteriorates rather than progresses?
The Prime Minister: There was, in discussion, unequivocal support by all the G7 members, including Japan—and of course Russia as part of the G8—for the indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995.
Mr. Peter Shore: The summit communiqué reads remarkably like the election manifestos put out by my hon. Friends who are candidates for the Labour leadership—[Interruption.]—So, obviously, there are good things in it. In particular, I welcome the movement of the G7 into the G8, including Russia, and the arrangements for a very searching 50-year anniversary review of the institutions set up in Bretton Woods. On the question of aid, can the Prime Minister tell us what figure he hopes to put on the further concessions of debt relief as compared with the $3,000 million debt relief already gained?
The Prime Minister: I think that it is difficult to put a precise figure on it. I will examine the scope for further reduction, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with a figure. It will be a very substantial figure indeed, but I cannot immediately put a figure on it.
On the earlier points, I am pleased to have the right hon. Gentleman's support for the review of the institutions. I was a little surprised to hear of the apparent similarity between the communiqué and the manifestos of the potential leaders of the Labour party, which I have read with great interest—[Interruption.] I am not sure that my vote would swing the result—not least, though, alas, he is not with us this afternoon, that of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, despite what was in the G7 communiqué, said on 4 July:
"Deregulation has been an economic failure".
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about nuclear proliferation, does he agree that one of the biggest problems is that North Korea and China are at the apex of a chain of proliferation which has already taken place, and that many countries in the middle east, not least Iran, Iraq and Libya, have significant capability and within the next five or six years are likely to have a launch facility which
674
will be able to strike parts of Europe? Does he agree that now is the time for us to accept that proliferation has to some extent failed, and to find new measures?
The Prime Minister: I am disinclined to accept the concept that proliferation has failed because I think that it is extremely important that we press the case for non-proliferation whenever and wherever we have the opportunity. It is not always entirely clear precisely who has the capacity to launch nuclear weapons and who has them. I wish it were a good deal clearer than it sometimes seems to us. But there is no doubt that we need to maintain pressure. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of countries which we have been pressing precisely on this point. He could probably name others, and so could I. However, we intend to continue to press for non-proliferation both through the treaty and, of course, bilaterally.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What did President Yeltsin say to his colleagues about sanctions against Iraq? How does the Prime Minister feel about continuing sanctions and the shortage of water filters and water pumps in the sweltering heat of Baghdad which will most certainly lead to massive disease in the Euphrates and Tigris valleys?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the humanitarian options that are available, and he and I have had the opportunity of discussing them in the past. President Yeltsin did not express a view on this matter, but Russia, of course, has supported the imposition of sanctions on Iraq, and continues to do so.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Group of Seven considered the long-term economic impact on the rest of the world of the growing industrial strength of Asiatic countries, not only Japan, Korea and Taiwan, as it was, but now increasingly India, China and half a dozen other countries?
The Prime Minister: We did not specifically discuss those countries in that sense, but in all the economic discussions of employment and growth, the changing position of south-east Asia and the Pacific basin countries was ever present in our minds. Many of the countries that were relatively captive markets to western states 20 or 25 years ago are now not only competing with those previous supplier countries but competing very successfully with them in different parts of the world. That is one of the matters that I think underlies the concern that we have for the maximum amount of industrial efficiency in this country, because competitiveness is far greater as a result of what has happened in the Pacific basin than it has ever been before.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the contribution that Her Majesty's Government are making to the rebuilding of Palestine. Would he be good enough to give the House some idea of what contributions his G7 colleagues are likely to make to that purpose, and does he consider them anything like sufficient for the immense job that faces President Arafat?
The Prime Minister: It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, an absolutely immense job. Apart from our bilateral contributions, there will be bilateral contributions of various sizes from a number of the other G7 countries, and

675
also a substantial collective contribution from the European Union. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the figures that we have.
Mr. Nigel Forman: May I return to the issue of non-proliferation in relation to nuclear matters? Was there any consideration at the summit of measures that it might be right for the G7 to take—and Russia to take—to encourage other sources of energy in countries that might be tempted to go nuclear precisely because they see nuclear power as their best chance for the future?
The Prime Minister: There was no discussion on that point—time did not permit detailed discussions on it. We are primarily concerned to make sure that the non-proliferation treaty is extended and that it sticks. As my hon. Friend will know, a large number of countries are at the moment disinclined to sign it; we are very concerned to make sure that they do.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Another summit, another jamboree. Why did not the Prime Minister tell us about the part of the communiqué that he had to deliver at the end of the summit in respect of those two Tory Members of Parliament with their noses in the trough?
On the subject of deregulation, why should big business have to carry the on-costs of lining the pockets of Tory Members to put down questions? In some of the other G7 Parliaments, the rule is: one Member of Parliament, one job only. If people cannot manage on £31,000 a year, they should not put up for the job.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman no doubt thinks that these summits are enormous fun. Set against the attractions of a cricket final at Lords they do pale to a certain extent, at least for me. The matters mentioned, with his usual delicacy, by the hon. Gentleman were not discussed at the summit.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: When the Foreign Secretary goes on his crucial mission this week—we all wish him success in that—will he and his colleagues see President Milosevic, Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic together, to impress on them not only how seriously the G8 view their appalling actions but also the fact that those who are responsible for war crimes will be brought to book?
The Prime Minister: I am confident that my right hon. Friend will meet each and every one of those gentlemen, but I very much doubt whether he will meet them together. There are likely to be separate meetings. He certainly proposes to see the leaders of the Serbs and the Bosnian Serbs, and I have no doubt that he will make my hon. Friend's final point to them.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: Did the Prime Minister, in one of his scripted or unscripted moments in Naples, discuss the presidency of the Commission? In his quest for anyone but Dehaene to succeed Delors, can he tell the House who now is in the frame and what qualities they have?
The Prime Minister: That too was not a matter for the G7 summit. There was no formal discussion at Naples of the Commission presidency—
Dr. John Cunningham: Go on.
The Prime Minister: I shall repeat it for the right hon. Gentleman's benefit: there was no formal discussion in Naples of the Commission presidency. It would be wholly wrong for four member states to form a caucus. [Laughter.] The House is well aware of the objection that I took to that on a previous occasion when there seemed to be a caucus. What is needed is thorough consultation between all 12 states, and that is what the German presidency has in hand.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: The conclusions of the summit properly recognised the importance to economic growth of deregulation and labour market reform—despite the somewhat spurious claims of the Johnnies-come-lately on the Opposition Benches. Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in a European context, subsidiarity is particularly important? Does he agree with Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, who recently said that subsidiarity provides the opportunity to roll back European decision making? Is not that evidence that European decision makers are at last coming round to the British view on subsidiarity?
The Prime Minister: I certainly know that the German presidency proposes to take subsidiarity a good deal further during its presidency of the European Union in the second half of this year. I have not heard the particular quote by Mr. Kinkel, but it is certainly one to which I would subscribe, and it is an indication of the extent to which the terms of debate in Europe have changed.
Mr. Harry Barnes: If the Government think that they are dragging us up the economic hill, taking the G7 countries behind us, who took us down in the first place?
The Prime Minister: One might ask the same question of all the G7 countries which suffered recession.
Mr. Barry Field: In three weeks' time, the Bank of England will be celebrating 300 years of survival. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best news to come out of the summit is that the G7 central banks, and the Bank of England in particular, would no longer be required to chase the US dollar all over the Pacific?
The Prime Minister: The tercentenary of the Bank of England is a remarkable occasion: the bank has been an astonishing institution over the years. My hon. Friend makes his point with great clarity.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Virtually the whole House will approve of the G7 putting up the money to close down Chernobyl nuclear power station. When is that likely to come about? There are other nuclear power stations of similar design in the former Soviet bloc. Will money be put up to close them down as well?
The Prime Minister: We have reached agreement on the way to help the Ukrainian authorities to close the Chernobyl plant. That involves closing the remaining reactors and assisting to complete new reactors with modern safety standards. That will now have to be discussed with the Ukraine. That will happen speedily, and I hope that the resources can then be made available. We have centred on Chernobyl because of the nature of that reactor and its condition, which is one of the special concerns.
Mr. John Greenway: Given that much of the nervousness in world financial markets appears in part to be due to worries about long-term inflation, what discussion took place on inflation prospects? Were other countries present able to point to the good news on inflation such as that we had today on factory prices?
The Prime Minister: Yes, there was some discussion on inflation. There is no doubt that at the moment inflationary tendencies are subdued, not just in this country but in other countries. It is certainly the intention of the G7 Governments, as far as it is practicable, to keep inflation at the lowest possible level. I hope that that will have its long-term impact on the markets as soon as it is apparent to them that that is happening.
Mr. Tony Worthington: The news that the United Nations and its organisations and the international financial institutions are to be reviewed is welcome, but is not this a matter of such importance that it would be appropriate for the Government to issue a consultation paper so that there could be widespread debate in this country on those matters?
The Prime Minister: We first have to consider the matter ourselves. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not immediately attracted to issuing a White Paper. I think that the first process is for us to consider as a Government—and I accept that it is certainly a reasonable matter for a debate in the House—whether we think that changes are necessary and, if so, what they might be. However, I would prefer to engage in discussion with other Governments before deciding what to press for. Although I hope that other people would not hesitate about letting us have their views, I am not at the moment attracted to publishing a White Paper.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I draw attention to the pressure, according to the communiqué, that the G7 countries and Russia are putting on the Haitian junta to step down? In his campaign for democracy and human rights, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the last Latin American republic that has still not returned to democracy and human rights—Cuba?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right: Haiti is a matter of some concern to a number of countries and, of course, particularly, for self-evident reasons, to the United States. We should certainly like to see the restoration of President Aristide and democratic government. That is equally the view of the other G7 Heads of Government.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Prime Minister spoke of the concern of the G7 Governments for the poorest in the world. Was he able to tell them when his Government would reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP for overseas aid?
The Prime Minister: No Government was able to give a commitment as to when that would be. As the hon. Lady knows, I think that we have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. I think that our record is unequalled by any other country in terms of the amount and speed with which we have completely written off historic debt.
Mr. Michael Brown: I believe that my right hon. Friend said that South Africa was discussed at the summit over the weekend. Will he confirm
678
that it is imperative that the G7, rather than just the United Kingdom, contributes to ensuring the economic development and regeneration of South Africa? If that country succeeds economically, the trickle-down effect across the whole continent will be of great benefit.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that other countries also recognise the importance of South Africa. In effect, they recognise that in two ways—the importance of dealing with the internal difficulties of the new South African Government; and, equally, the impact of a successful South Africa on the whole of southern and central Africa. I have no doubt that other countries will offer assistance. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of trade is currently in South Africa, with business men, to determine what assistance can be given.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: In his statement, the Prime Minister suggested that the G7 supported his Government's calls for flexible labour markets. However, was it not the case that in the final communiqué other members of the G7 insisted specifically that the word "flexible" was not part of the final words? Is not that because they have quite a different view from Government policy on the best way to create jobs?
The Prime Minister: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman heard that, but it did not occur in any discussion to which I was party.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Following directly from the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) about job creation, did not the G7—now G8—countries discuss the introduction of an information super-highway? Did not they have before them the European Commission's White Paper on growth, competitiveness and trade? If so, were not they surprised that it is full of the British solution to introducing an information super-highway, which is competition, deregulation and privatisation?
The Prime Minister: That White Paper was referred to in the discussions, although the super-highway was not mentioned other than in the general sense of greater liberalisation of telecommunications.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the G7 nations cannot bring pressure to bear on the International Monetary Fund and the World bank on the issue of accountability? Will pressure be brought to bear on the IMF and the World bank to ensure that in future developing nations will be genuinely treated as equal partners and not as beggars?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the IMF views indebted countries in that fashion. It tries to assist them and to help them out of their difficulties. That is one of its purposes. Certainly those IMF officials whom I have met would not in any way characterise the countries in the way that the hon. Lady described them.
There is no doubt that there is a need for assistance for those countries. I believe that the IMF provides it. However, as we examine the future of the IMF and other institutions, we need to consider whether that can be done better in the future than it has been done in the past.
Mr. John Marshall: Although the whole House welcomes the trade and aid policies being

679
pursued by the European Union towards Gaza and Jericho, does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsibility for helping those parts of the world goes much wider than just Europe? Was any estimate made of the contribution that the oil-rich Arab states could make to the regeneration process?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches upon an important point. There is no doubt that the Arab states—many, although not all, of which are oil-rich—should make a significant contribution to the future development of Gaza. That point is relevant—[Interruption.] I hear an Opposition Member whispering that some of them have already committed—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Some of the money has gone.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman interrupts me. An Opposition Member whispered that some of the Arab states have already contributed. Others have indicated that they will do so.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Was there any discussion of the urgent need to provide continuing financial assistance to those countries most heavily affected by the imposition of United Nations sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro? The Prime Minister will surely agree that Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Macedonia deserve continuing assistance.
The Prime Minister: There was no specific discussion of that matter, for the simple reason that the international financial institutions take that into account in the assistance that they provide at present.
Mr. Michael Bates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that news that the considerable needs of the poorest nations of the world featured so high on the agenda of a meeting of the richest seven nations will be deeply refreshing to many people throughout the country? Will he ensure that the review of international institutions, which is long overdue in the eyes of many, will specifically examine
680
the costs of bureaucracy and duplication so that the maximum amount of money can go to those who need it most?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. In providing further assistance to many of the poorest countries, there is a need not only for cash assistance—and I do not resile from the fact that much of that is necessary—but to do whatever can be done to ensure that the money is used for the purposes for which it was intended.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Did I hear the Prime Minister make a fleeting reference to unemployment and employment creation? If I did, does the right hon. Gentleman accept Library statistics that show that, in Britain today, only 25 million people are in employment when the peak figure in 1990 was 26 million? We are 1 million jobs short. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that, when the G7 nations discussed that matter, they did not settle on the part-time, low-wage, poverty-making employment that the right hon. Gentleman's Government have created? What will they do to provide real jobs at decent wages for people in G7 countries?
The Prime Minister: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he is completely wrong. Perhaps he would like to tell me how many countries have a higher proportion of their adult population in work than does this country. There is only one in the European Union, and the hon. Gentleman would go a long way outside to find another that is better. The drivel talked by his hon. Friends can safely be ignored.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, either at the summit or in his bilateral discussions with President Clinton, he raised concerns about the fall in the US dollar and the impact that that would have on constituents such as mine who work at Jaguar who need to export to the US market?
The Prime Minister: No. I am not going to make any comments in the House on currency values.

Points of Order
4.16 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Over the past two years, you have been vigilant on behalf of the legislature in holding the Executive to account in the House. Last week, the Department of Trade and Industry modified its policy in relation to naming an individual who is subject to investigation for insider trading. We are advised that there will be a further statement on the same subject this week by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Would not it be right and appropriate for such a statement to be made on the Floor of the House so that the Executive can be held accountable to us all?
Madam Speaker: The whole House knows my views on how, why and by what methods the Executive should be held to account on behalf of the people of this country through the House—but I have not been told whether a statement is to be made this week or at any other time.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard of the stories that appeared in The Sunday Times about a confidence trickster who came to the Palace of Westminster. I would describe him as an agent provocateur. Would the correct procedure for any hon. Member—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with this matter—I believe that I know the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise. I make it clear to the House that anyone who alleges that a breach of privilege has occurred should write to me without delay. I assure the House that I already have that matter under urgent and active consideration. I shall report to the House as soon as I can. The House will be the first to hear my statement. We must proceed.
Mr. Graham Riddick rose—
Madam Speaker: I will take no further points of order on that matter. Is it a totally different point of order?
Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Riddick: Yes, Madam Speaker. May I voice my strong support for the suggestion that an inquiry is set up into the—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard quite enough. I made my views known to the House. I repeat that I have the matter under urgent and active consideration. The House will know my views as soon as I have reached a decision.
Mr. Riddick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will accept no further points of order on that matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Michael Connarty rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I call Mr. Connarty.
Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Scottish Question Time last Wednesday, 6 July, as
682
reported in column 304 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) asked a question about power. I noticed that in the Register of Members' Interests that Member is paid a consultancy fee by Scottish Power and has a car from that company. My point of order is that Members should enter in the register the amount of money that they get—
Madam Speaker: Order. At Question Time hon. Members do not have to divulge their interests. I thought that that was known by the entire House.
Mr. Connarty: They should.
Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman must raise the matter with the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is, Madam Speaker. Will you rule on a contradiction between two resolutions—a contradiction that will not be dealt with in any announcement that you might make to the House at any stage on the issue of privilege? One resolution was carried in 1695 and states that the House of Commons resolved that
"the offer of money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted In Parliament is a high crime and misdemeanour"—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that Speakers do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall be happy to give him the best possible advice, but I shall not proceed with the matter now. I have made my decision and that is final.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On what basis does—
Madam Speaker: Order. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about a procedural matter—a matter that he alone is concerned about. He does not know what my eventual ruling will be. If he writes to me, I will give him procedural advice.
Mr. Connarty rose—
Madam Speaker: I have already heard a point of order from the hon. Gentleman.
Ms Glenda Jackson: The chief executive of the Royal Free hospital trust in my constituency issued a statement on Friday, saying that residents of my constituency in the NW5 postal district would be excluded from that hospital's catchment area due to lack of central Government funding. As that flies in the face of the statement by the Secretary of State for Health—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is a totally bogus point of order. That is a matter not for me but for the Executive. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Speaker of this House.
Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Scottish Question Time, the hon. Member for

683
Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) used the terms "corruption" and "dubious practice". In the light of the recent revelations, can you rule—
Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat? I have had enough bogus points of order for today. The House must wait for my ruling.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You ruled, Madam Speaker, that matters of procedure should be dealt with in writing to you. I have never heard such a ruling from the Chair before in all my 14 years here. I have heard the ruling that matters of privilege should be dealt with in correspondence to the Speaker. Can I protect the rights of Back-Benchers by exercising my right to ask a question on an issue of procedure, not of privilege, and return to the subject of the two resolutions of the House in 1695 and 1974? One is on page—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order that is allied to a matter that I have dealt with. I am the first to protect the rights of all Back Benchers and that is what I have done by my decision today. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue that matter.
Let me make one point clear: matters of procedure are not dealt with across the Floor of the House. My predecessors never gave advice across the Floor about the way to proceed. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall do my utmost to give him the right advice.

BILLS PRESENTED
  UNFAIR DISMISSAL (INSOLVENCY OF EMPLOYER)
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. John Garrett, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Norman Hogg, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. David Winnick, presented a Bill to amend section 122 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 so as to extend the awards of compensation for unfair dismissal which may be paid from the Redundancy Fund in the event of insolvency of the employer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
  ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION
  Mr. Cynog Dafis, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up plans in order to achieve certain stated road traffic reduction targets and the discussion of those plans in Parliament; to require local authorities to draw up local traffic reduction plans; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October 1994, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS]
Ordered,
That the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]

Orders of the Day

  European Union (Accessions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Bill introduces a treaty whose provisions concern four applicant members joining the European Community. The provisions of the treaty are consequent on all four members' joining. If one of those members, or more—as a result of referendums—were not then to join the Community, what impact would that then have on this legislation and what consequent procedures would we need?
  Madam Speaker: That is a very good question, which the Foreign Secretary may attempt to answer during the debate.
  4.25 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is quite neat for the Second Reading debate to follow the Prime Minister's account of the summit in Naples. One of the themes of that summit was the need for international institutions to adapt to changed circumstances. For the world has changed. Economies that were recently impoverished are now competing successfully with ours; we have a world without communism in which the socialist model of development is largely discredited, and a Europe without the Berlin wall in which the words "peace, freedom and democracy" have one meaning and not two.
  Those are new thoughts. Have we really understood the implications of such changes for our institutions? We know how earthquakes happen: when the tectonic plates of the earth shift, earthquakes are followed by aftershocks, and it takes time for the terrain to stabilise and become familiar again. The international terrain is not stable now; it is not yet familiar again; the aftershocks are still with us.
  We have already made important changes in our institutions. The Bretton Woods institutions mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—the IMF and the World bank, which are 50 years old this week—are changing their role and their membership. The GATT is about to become the World Trade Organisation. NATO is adjusting to a new security landscape, reaching eastward through "Partnership for Peace". There is discussion about reforming the United Nations Security Council. The G7 is becoming the G8, and, I hope, is returning to its traditional format of the "fireside chat".
  We have made all those changes, but we shall certainly need more. That applies—particularly this afternoon—to the European Union. Old certainties are changing; unthinking centralism is a theme of the past. Ideas and structures that made sense—good sense, perhaps—for the six original members will make no sense for the European Union of 20 members, or probably more, for which we are heading. That is why subsidiarity, respect for national traditions and diversity are growing themes for the future.
  686
  One such theme that is influencing the future of the European Union powerfully is the theme of enlargement. That will apply first to the four European Free Trade Association countries—Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden—and then, I hope, will apply further east. That is why the Bill is important: it shows that the European Union recognises the need for change in its external as well as its internal affairs.
  The Bill follows from the treaty of accession between the European Union and Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden, which was signed two weeks ago in Corfu. It will ensure that Britain is able to honour the obligations laid down in that treaty; its passage is essential if we are to ratify the accession treaty and allow those four countries to accede to the Union. The Bill gives effect to the treaty in United Kingdom law by adding it to the list of Community treaties in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and clause 2 also approves the treaty for the purposes of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978.
  Let me now deal with the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Article 2 of the treaty allows for technical adjustments to be made if an acceding state fails to ratify. My hon. Friend made the reasonable point that each of the four applicants would need referendums in their own countries under their own constitutional procedures; one referendum has been conducted successfully, and three are awaited. But the people who drafted the treaty were aware of that point. That is why they provided in the treaty for technical adjustments to be made by the Council of the European Union if an acceding state failed to ratify.
  Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful information. But the technical adjustments could affect the balance in qualified majority voting. Is there a formula that my right hon. Friend could introduce to the House? Or could the balance be changed during the technical adjustments—in which case what instrument would be introduced to ratify those adjustments?
  Mr. Hurd: We shall certainly follow up that point. My hon. Friend the Minister of State can deal with it at greater length in his winding-up speech. There is provision in the treaty to deal with that matter. If such action were needed, the Council of Ministers would make a decision, which would be followed by our own parliamentary procedure. Details of that procedure may be given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, my hon. Friend's point has been covered in the treaty.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way, but it might be better to deal with this matter now. The Bill refers to the treaty on accession to the European Union, whereas the Act that joined us to what is commonly known as the Maastricht treaty referred only to titles II, III and IV of that treaty. Will the Secretary of State tell us why that formula was not repeated here, with reference only to titles II, III and IV—which of course have the legislative effect, as distinct from those under the prerogative of the Crown?
  Mr. Hurd: We are advised that there is no need to do otherwise than is provided for in the Bill because there would be no effect in United Kingdom law. The Bill covers the points that it needs to cover and not others.
  This is a short but significant Bill. I shall try to explain briefly why enlargement to cover the four countries will

  687
  substantially benefit Britain, our consumers and our businesses. The Bill and the treaty point the European Union in the right direction. We are showing by enlargement that we realise that half of Europe is not the whole of Europe—that the European Union is not an exclusive club but an extended family of nations. No family can shut out its members and stay at ease with itself. We should not treat our success in the European Union as a commodity that we hoard to ourselves. It is a model to emulate and a prize to be shared.
  We have held that view in this country for a long time. No other Government have argued as forcefully as ours that the European Union should open its doors. No other leaders have argued as strongly as the Prime Minister and Baroness Thatcher that Europe is not an exclusive club.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No. I should like to continue for a little while.
  When we began the argument, it was very controversial. At first, it met stiff resistance. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) knows that because he has followed these matters and held more consistent opinions on them than most Opposition Members. He knows perfectly well that the idea of widening the Community jarred harshly with the old-fashioned idea that European construction came only by the steady centralisation of power in Brussels. The cry was, "We must deepen, we must not widen." Opponents of enlargement, who were strong at one time, saw it as an unwelcome distraction from the gradual centralisation of power. We had to argue at Maastricht—and we prevailed in the argument—that the treaty should include the right signal that any member state could apply to become a member of the Union.
  Mr. Radice: It is true that the Government have been in favour of enlargement and I congratulate them on that, but it is a bit much not to acknowledge that the united Germany has always been in favour of enlargement as well. It was Mr. Kohl who said that the borders of the European Union should not end on the Oder-Neisse line, and he was right.
  Mr. Hurd: Indeed, Mr. Kohl and the unified Germany have made that point; we were making it substantially in advance of that.
  Mr. Radice: No.
  Mr. Hurd: History shows that clearly.
  We kept up the impetus on behalf of enlargement during the British presidency and at the European Council in Edinburgh in December 1992. That was when the decision was taken to open negotiations promptly with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. At the same time, we held out the prospect of membership for the new democracies of eastern Europe. It was really no accident that it was our presidency that marked the decisive point in the history of enlargement.
  Those four countries are, of course, all members of the European Free Trade Association. We in Britain thought for a time that the European free trade area would provide an alternative to membership of the European Economic Community—a way of having our cake and eating it. We saw it as a means of increasing trade and co-operation with Europe without having to give up any power to
  688
  supranational institutions. After a year or so—I am talking of 30 years ago—we realised that that was an error and that a free trade area alone would not provide the European prosperity that we desired. We also realised that the European Community, with the powerful economies of Germany and France at its heart, was destined to be a major player in Europe and that it would not be to our benefit to remain outside. That is why, with the Danes, we left EFTA in 1972 and joined the European Community.
  A number of European countries could not do that. The Norwegian Government wanted to join the EC, but the Norwegian people voted against membership in 1972. Finland's long border with Russia made it very cautious about provoking the Soviet Union by moving towards closer integration with western Europe. Then the plates shifted; the world changed. The cold war ended and the collapse of the Soviet threat allowed Finland and the other neutral countries—Austria, Sweden and Switzerland—to look again at their policies towards western European institutions. They no longer felt that they had to remain outside for security reasons and they began to weigh up the benefits of EC membership.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Can my right hon. Friend give us some explanation of what he understands by the word "deepening" in a European context? We want to know whether we are to welcome those four countries so that the European Union may be loosened up or whether we shall be told continuously that it is possible to have further deepening as well as enlargement and even that it may become necessary to have a single currency because we have more members in the European Union.
  Mr. Hurd: I can think of several arguments for a single currency, but not that one. The two processes—deepening and widening—have to be considered separately on their merits. What we rejected in the early days was the idea that we could not enlarge because we had to spend all our time deepening. The two things are entirely separate. What we are dealing with here is enlargement. The treaty of Maastricht is the basis on which the Community will rest for the next few years. What we are discussing now is the extent to which the Community should be enlarged on that basis.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: May I none the less coax my right hon. Friend into agreeing that the striking feature about the four countries now joining, subject to the referendums, is that they have all strongly reiterated their adherence to deeper integration as the only way in which to take the Community forward? They have all said that with great emphasis in all their official statements.
  Mr. Hurd: Before I close, I shall analyse rather more clearly what the role of the four countries is likely to be. I shall spend a little time on that before I conclude.
  I was talking about what happened when the cold war ended and how that altered the view of the four countries. Something else happened. Around the same time, or a year or two earlier, the member states of the European Community decided to form a single market. The Single European Act in 1986 marked a new stage in the development of the Community. Its businesses were gradually able to operate on a truly European scale for Europe-wide growth and prosperity. The EFTA countries rightly feared that they would be sidelined as business and

  689
  investment were drawn to the greater opportunities then offered by the Community. That is why the EFTA countries joined the Community to form the European Economic Area which covered all the EFTA countries except Switzerland and virtually all the single market legislation of the Community.
  So the four countries with which we are concerned today are already members of the single market. They have already taken on most of the European Community legislation in that area. The point that I am making, however, is that they are not satisfied with that. They have no real say in the drafting of new legislation which affects them. They have no seat at the table where it is decided and they are excluded from other areas of European policy—the common commercial policy, financial and fiscal policies, the intergovernmental pillars of the treaty of Maastricht, the work-together on foreign policy, and the work-together on Home Office matters such as the drive against crime and the drug trade.
  Rather than settle for that second-class status in Europe, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Austria all elected to go the whole way for what they saw as the big prize: to take their place in shaping the future of Europe rather than allowing others to shape their future without them. They recognise that only by joining the European Union can they have a say in the decisions that affect the whole of Europe, and that only by taking their seats at the European table can they truly play a part in Europe's future.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I could use the same arguments about sitting at the top table in the context of Scotland. The four countries that we are discussing have already achieved economic convergence with the European Union. But the Foreign Secretary talks about further enlargement. What kind of time scale is envisaged and what kind of criteria will be used for the emerging democracies?
  Mr. Hurd: Poland, Hungary, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey have applied, but we are not negotiating with them at present because it will be some time—they accept this—before they are qualified. Qualification means being political democracies—they are all political democracies -and it also means being economically qualified to take on the treaty's competition rules about state aids. It will take some time. I do not believe that the next stage of enlargement to full membership is likely to be completed in this century, but that is a matter for discussion. There has been no decision on timetables.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend address the preamble to the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? Does he not see how integration with the European Union is being used by the Scottish nationalists to destabilise the integrity of the United Kingdom, and that they are campaigning for an independent Scotland in the European Union? Does he not see how our integration with the European Union gives credibility to those arguments?
  Mr. Hurd: I have been hearing those arguments for ever. They make no sense and I am amazed that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) should pay such attention to them. The idea that it makes sense for Scotland to detach itself from the United
  690
  Kingdom, and therefore from our membership of the EU, and the idea that it would be an easy or pain-free operation to then knock on the door in a completely new set of clothes and say, "This is little Scotland wanting to come in", is simply unreal. When that issue is explored before a Scottish audience, I find that the assembly argument disintegrates quite quickly. I hope that all of us who disagree with it and who wish to preserve the Union of this kingdom will not give the idea the kind of credence which, unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North seems to be bestowing on it.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No. I want to get on. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) leaning forward in his seat, but I must get on because many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.
  We are not yet at the point where the process is complete, because of the issue of referendums, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North raised a few minutes ago. The Austrian people voted on membership a few weeks ago. They were submitted to the usual mishmash of views on and criticisms of Europe—some, alas, perfectly true and others mythical. Having been exposed to that for a number of weeks, a resounding majority voted in favour of membership. The last fling of the "no" campaign was the accusation that, in future, yoghurts would contain Spanish beetles as colouring matter, and that that was not a price that the Austrian people should pay for joining the Union. As a result of that clash of opinions, they voted in favour of membership. We were pleased to see that and pleased with the margin by which they did it. I cannot predict—obviously, it would be foolish to predict—the outcome of the remaining three referendums this autumn. Obviously, the Austrian result is hopeful and we hope that the Finns, the Swedes and the Norwegians will vote to join us.
  The accession negotiations were certainly not always plain sailing, as the House will remember. All the parties concerned had important interests: all the applicant countries had important interests to protect and it was not easy to find a balance between them. The outcome in the treaty was a good deal for the applicant countries, a good deal for Britain and a good deal for Europe as a whole.
  One of our many concerns, as we went into those negotiations, was a point that has already been touched on: the arrangements for how decisions should be taken—not the question of the national veto, which featured largely in the recent European elections in this country, because that was not at stake—in the provisions for qualified majority voting. We wanted to ensure that there would be a fundamental review of the QMV system in the 1996 intergovernmental conference. As the House knows, that was agreed. The conference will have to devise—it will not be easy—a formula which more closely reflects population levels in member countries but ensures that the rights of minorities are properly safeguarded.
  During the discussions in the spring, we agreed finally on a legally binding arrangement, which requires the presidency and the Commission to take any initiative necessary to reach a solution supported by member states with at least 68 votes. We had a rough time on that. With the Spaniards, we pressed for stronger protection for minorities, whereas 10 member states resisted anything

  691
  other than the automatic uprating of the figures which had occurred on earlier enlargements. Experience next year, when—we hope—the arrangement comes into effect, and thereafter will show how it works out. I am reasonably confident that, in practice, the compromise that we accepted will justify itself.
  Certainly, the clarifications which we attained at the same time on the Commission's social programme have already proved their worth. I am clear that we would have scored a dramatic own goal if we had disrupted the whole process of enlargement because of a disagreement over the figures for qualified majority voting.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I should like to clarify the point that my right hon. Friend was making when he said that the arrangement was legally binding. He meant, of course, that it was legally binding in international law and not under the auspices of the European Court of Justice.
  Mr. Hurd: It is the subject of a decision of the Council and, as the German Foreign Minister confirmed at the time, it is legally binding under European law. There are two documents—a declaration and a decision. The declaration is not legally binding and the decision—in jargon terms, the Beschluss—is legally binding.
  Let me refer to the practical consequences of enlargement. Like us, Sweden, Austria and Norway will be net contributors to the Community budget. So they will share our interest in budget discipline and in value for money. Like us, they will want to ensure that Community funds are used efficiently. The fact that four relatively well-off countries will be coming into the European Union will reduce the amount that other countries, including Britain, will need to contribute to the budget. We expect our British contribution to be some £300 million sterling less over the first six years of accession than it would otherwise have been.
  All four of those countries will, we believe, join us in arguing for a market-oriented, free-trading Europe, rather than the more protectionist "Fortress Europe" approach, which has its advocates in the EU. We steadily fight against that approach and we shall have allies in that argument.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall get on a little and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.
  In particular, the close ties that those four countries have with the countries in central and eastern Europe mean that, like us, they will want to see the benefits of the free market extended to the whole of Europe. I can give a practical example of that. Finland, Sweden and Norway already have free-trade agreements with the Baltic states—they are ahead of the European Union in that respect—but, because of accession, those trade arrangements with the Baltics will, from next year, extend to the whole of the European Union. That is a practical example of how the free-trade impulses of the new arrivals have already affected, for the better in our view, the trading arrangements of the rest of US.
  We can also expect the four countries to support us in arguing for the vigorous application of subsidiarity throughout the Community. They have all applied to join the European Union because they believe, like us, that certain matters are best discussed at European level. But they all have strong traditions of democracy and
  692
  independence and do not want to see the Community act in areas where decisions could best be made at national level. Like us, they believe that the European Union should be a union of diverse nation states, each preserving its own traditions and its own identity. They take the view that their accession will add to that diversity.
  Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Scandinavian countries have a strong position—it is one that he has not mentioned—on social policy, trade union rights, consumerism, the environment, a single currency and on many other matters, including an obsession with the deutschmark, in respect of which we have taken a directly contrary view? Given our reservations about centralising and socialising tendencies in Brussels, we have sought to resist those tendencies, whereas the Scandinavian countries have an active policy of encouraging them.
  Mr. Hurd: I have not yet mentioned those matters, because I gave way to my hon. Friend before I completed my speech. I wish now that I had let my hon. Friend make his own speech and that I had not given way to him. I shall touch on the matters to which he has referred as I continue, and I shall now continue.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Gill rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. I have had experience of several of my hon. Friends making their speeches in the middle of mine. Perhaps the House should have a clearer understanding of what I intend to mention before I am rebuked for not mentioning certain things. I can never resist my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), however, and before I conclude I shall give way to him, but not now.
  The four countries that I have mentioned will take—
  Mr. Gill: I would ask my right hon. Friend to give way now.
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to my hon. Friend and then I will bring my remarks to an end.
  Mr. Gill: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) intervened, my right hon. Friend was talking about the need for the countries that are now proposing to join the European Union to preserve their own national identity. Is he aware of the remark that the German ambassador to Moscow is reported to have made to the effect that national sovereignty is becoming irrelevant and meaningless, but that for all that many still cling to it? I accept that my right hon. Friend cannot be held responsible for what German diplomats say, but it is worth putting on record the fact that there are people in the German foreign department who apparently take a view that is contrary to that of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members hope to catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair, and long interventions do not assist.
  Mr. Hurd: I feel sad for my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr.Gill) after his intervention. No, I am not responsible for what the German ambassador in Moscow says. I know what Chancellor Kohl says, and I have heard him say it more than once: he says that the old idea of a

  693
  united states of Europe is not worth pursuing and will not work. Germany does not have exactly the same views as us on the way in which Europe should proceed. However, the ideas that gradually nations in Europe will disappear, that gradually centralisation will assert itself until there is one Executive in Brussels and one Parliament in Strasbourg or Brussels, are finished. Those who used to advocate them are either silent or in a small minority. They certainly do not appear in the four applicant countries.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No, I shall get on.
  The four countries have proud Parliaments and strong traditions of legislative scrutiny. They will consider carefully the implications of proposed Community legislation before they vote on it. Once legislation is in place, we can expect them to be diligent in implementing and enforcing it.
  By joining us, they will increase their own international standing and influence and ours. Norway, of course, is an old friend and an old ally in NATO. The accession of the four countries to the European Union should not affect the strong Atlantic ties in Norway. The other three countries have a long tradition of neutrality. They have said, however, that they will take their full part in shaping common foreign and security policies. Whether they decide to join the Western European Union, which they can do but do not have to do, is a matter for them. They might prefer the status of observer, as have Denmark and Ireland. That is a good example of the multitrack Europe of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have spoken recently.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No, I shall get on.
  All four states, in their different ways, are outward looking with strong records of contributing to peacekeeping and generous aid programmes. Of course, we shall not always agree with the new members on all subjects. I have usefully been reminded that they may be tempted to support measures under the social chapter that we reject. I suppose that that is possible.
  I must say, however, that the tide of opinion in Europe—and elsewhere, but especially in Europe—is now blatantly beginning to flow strongly in favour of competitiveness and against over-regulation. If the four countries were to join in supporting measures under the social chapter, we should be even more grateful for the opt-out that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained at Maastricht, which would protect us in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would not be well advised to start opposing extension or enlargement of membership of the European Union because we shall not always agree with the views of those who join us.
  There will be matters on which we differ occasionally, but having worked with my colleagues in the four applicant countries at the various meetings that they have attended in advance of enlargement, I do not doubt for a moment that the blend of enthusiasm and common sense that they bring to our discussions will strengthen the quality of the decisions that we take.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend safeguard himself against over-optimism? Will he tell us—yes or no
  694
  —whether the £300 million that he has said we might gain because of the proposed arrangement was estimated after or before the information that we received on Friday from the Treasury, which is in the Vote Office: namely, that our gross contribution in 1995 will increase by £2,000 million, which is £3 per week per family, and that agriculture expenditure will break through the legal barriers despite all the pledges and optimism, which I am sure my right hon. Friend entered into and displayed genuinely after the Edinburgh summit?
  Mr. Hurd: I am writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the general point about our contribution. I was asked about the matter only the other day in that Select Committee and I promised to produce figures, which I have set out in a letter to my right hon. Friend.
  I was talking in the context of the Bill. The figure that I gave was the amount by which our contribution would be less than it would have been if the new states—[Interruption.] That was the point that I was making in terms of the Bill. I was saying that our contribution would be substantially less by the figure I gave—£300 million over six years—because of enlargement.
  There are other practical benefits. First, our agriculture exporters will benefit from the opening of the previously highly protected agriculture markets of the four applicant countries. Our fishermen will have new opportunities in Norwegian waters from 1997 onwards. Those who manufacture alcoholic drinks—I hope that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will listen to this—will benefit from the opening of Nordic markets and the dismantling of state monopolies. Our hauliers will benefit from increased access to the crucial Austrian market following agreement that our quota for terminating traffic will increase. Our oil industry—especially the offshore supplies industry—will benefit from Norwegian acceptance of the European Union rules. That should mean new contracts and new jobs. Many of those points will be of particular interest to Scottish Members.
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No. I have given way to the hon. Lady already and I shall not give way to her again.
  Mrs. Ewing: My intervention will be on the points that the right hon. Gentleman has just made.
  Mr. Hurd: No. I have already explained the benefits to Scottish fishermen that will flow from the arrangement.
  I have no doubt that British business in the different sectors that I have mentioned will benefit—perhaps not hugely, but significantly—from enlargement. The significance of the arrangement goes wider than that, however. The accession of the four countries, with their strong democratic traditions, their prosperous economies, their international outlook and their commitment to an efficient and effective common-sense European Union, is a substantial step towards the outward-looking Europe that most people in Europe seek. It is a step towards dismantling the divisions of Europe, which belong to the cold-war era and which are out of date.
  The enlargement will point the way towards closer links with the countries of central and eastern Europe and, indeed, their eventual accession to the European Union. We have believed very strongly, including those who have

  695
  been doubtful in the past about the course which the European Community—now the European Union—was taking, that it must be right for the European Union to keep its doors open to those who wish to join; that half Europe could not call itself the whole of Europe; and that where countries qualified, they should be allowed to enter.
  Without any doubt, the four countries qualify. They are mature, established democracies. Indeed, it is patronising even to question that point. These countries have given Europe and the world many lessons in democracy and solid good sense. Having passed through intellectual changes as the world has changed around them, and as their security and economies are now on a different basis, they see that their future lies in full membership of the European Union.
  We should welcome that, not because we will agree with them on every subject because of course we will not, but because the voices and interests that they bring and the contribution they will make to the future of the European Union will, I am sure, be abundantly worth while. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: It is a genuine pleasure to welcome the prospect of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden joining us as members of the European Union. Labour has long campaigned for their admission to the European Union. We made that commitment a long time ago and presented it to our conference in a policy statement last year. We reiterated our support for that goal in our European election manifesto which, as the House will recall, was massively endorsed by the people of this country on 9 June when we had a resounding victory, won the largest share of the vote and the greatest number of seats and made the most gains.
  The Foreign Secretary did not find an opportunity to mention the European elections in his 35-minute speech and I am not surprised about that. He looked like a relieved man when he was eventually able to resume his seat having rediscovered the fault lines in his party.
  The Foreign Secretary talked about earthquakes at the beginning of his speech. The biggest earthquake for the Foreign Secretary and his right hon. and hon. Friends was the result on 9 June—the worst performance by the Conservative party in any national election this century. Whatever else the Foreign Secretary can claim for his party's policies on Europe, he certainly cannot claim the endorsement of the people of this country.
  That great victory for our policies, and those election results, give Labour a strong voice for Britain in Europe. We are the largest group in the European Parliament, with 62 Members. Our colleague Pauline Green has been elected overwhelmingly as leader of the socialist group, which is the most influential group in the Parliament. We hope that our friend and colleague Klaus Hänsch of the German SPD will soon be elected President of the Parliament. He has our wholehearted support.
  We shall give all that power—[Interruption.] I am sure that I have the endorsement of the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We shall continue to use that power and influence in the European Parliament in support of our friends in Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden and we continue to work in the party of European socialists, of which I have the honour of being vice-president, to that end. There is emphatic support in that organisation for the four applicant countries. Austrian,
  696
  Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish social democrats are members of the party of European socialists. We have worked closely with them from the outset on their applications and we continue to do so.
  We welcome four friends and countries with strong traditions of good government, and of strong social democratic government in many cases. Those countries regularly elect social democratic parties to govern their affairs. We welcome them also because at least three of them will be net contributors to the European Union budget. All four countries have good records on economic, social and environmental policy and all four are strong supporters of the social chapter. If their applications are successfully endorsed by their electorates, 15 out of 16 member states will strongly support a social dimension for the European Union. That is something that we, too, strongly endorse and which, I regret to say, further increases the isolation of the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in their mulish objections to policies which, despite their standing on the touchline in a petulant way, the other members of the European Union are determined to see through.
  Mr. Hurd: They are not doing very much about it.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary spoke a moment too soon. He should read the newspapers. A report of a meeting this weekend under the new German presidency, chaired by Norbert Blüm, should be drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. Norbert Blüm makes it absolutely clear that, during the German presidency, they intend to press ahead with the development and deepening of the social dimension of the European Union.
  That is the trouble with Bonn, of course. We used to be told in briefings from 10 Downing street that Helmut and John were chums. It now looks more like, "Auf Wiedersehen Helmut, bon giorno, Silvio", despite the latter gentleman's tendency to work with neo-fascists in Italy. I say to the Foreign Secretary, as I have said before in this House and elsewhere, that the Opposition want to make it absolutely clear that we want nothing to do with emerging fascism in Europe, whether inside the European Union or outside it. It is about time the Foreign Secretary made his own position, and that of his party, clear on that subject.
  Mr. Hurd: There is a coalition in Italy which hosted the recent summit. There were several Ministers there, some from one party and some from another. All were freely and democratically elected, and all were elected on a particular programme which I do not think contains any elements of fascism. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that a Labour Government would not work with that Italian Government? I cannot believe that that is the case. No other Government in Europe are taking that view. Is that a view that the right hon. Gentleman would urge upon us? It makes no sense at all.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary is wriggling. He is avoiding the question and obfuscating the issue. I did not say that we would not work with an Italian Government. I said that we would not work with neo-fascists if they were part of one.
  We have made our position clear in respect of the growth of right-wing extremism right across the European Union—in France, in Germany and, for that matter, here in London. We are implacably opposed to those people at

  697
  every level. That is one reason why, in the face of the growth of fascism, xenophobia and racial intolerance in Europe, we have been calling for the designation of a Commissioner to deal with racial equality in Europe. It is also a reason why we shall continue to press for legislation on racial equality in the European Union.
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is moving off into total generalities. Is he advising Her Majesty's Government to boycott and have no dealings with the present Italian Government with their present composition?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I am advising the Foreign Secretary to have nothing to do with the neo-fascist members of that Government. That is no switch. It is exactly what I said at the outset.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I will give way in a moment.
  We were talking about the Secretary of State's unfounded sedentary intervention that no progress will be made on social agenda policies in Europe.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: Not for the moment.
  The right hon. Gentleman's statement is a flat contradiction of all the evidence, including the most recent from the German presidency. The social dimension in Europe will continue to become more significant whether the right hon. Gentleman and his friends like it or not. If they want to continue to put their heads in the sand on this issue, let them do so, but they are not fooling the House or the people of Britain. They are fooling no one by trying to argue that the rest of Europe is coming round to their way of thinking. There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that vacuous assertion.
  Mr. Budgen: If one Government were negotiating with another Government, could the right hon. Gentleman please explain the practicalities of how it would be possible for the British Government to say to the Italian Government, "We are prepared to talk to one Minister, but we are not prepared to talk to another"? How could that be done?
  Dr. Cunningham: Quite easily, because we would make it clear that we would not be willing to participate in discussions with fascists. It is as simple and straightforward as that. It is interesting to note that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches apparently feel quite comfortable with the idea of sitting down and working with fascists. They seem quite relaxed about that, but they should think about past failures. The Foreign Secretary gave a little history lesson at the outset of his speech, but he seems to have forgotten past failures to confront fascism.
  The European Union has changed and is continuing to change. The Opposition want that process to continue. This is the fourth wave of enlargement to which we look forward. If all four applicants are successful, one of the world's largest trading areas, with an estimated output of almost $7,000 billion, will be created. The accession treaty agreed in March 1994, and signed by Heads of State and Government in Corfu, would become, for British
  698
  constitutional purposes, one of the Community treaties, as defined in the section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Bill will amend that Act to take account of the accession treaty and make the necessary changes in United Kingdom law.
  As with the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Bill is—potentially, at least—amendable, but any amendment incompatible with the accession treaty could prevent United Kingdom ratification of the proposal. Such amendments will therefore not have the support of the Opposition. We do not wish to take any action that would impede the Bill's safe and swift passage. The Opposition, at least, want to ensure that we do nothing to prevent Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden from becoming members of the European Union. We will do nothing that might jeopardise the referendums that will have to take place in three of those four countries. We applaud the huge success of Chancellor Vranitzky's campaign for a yes vote in the Austrian referendum and we hope that that success will be repeated in the other three applicant countries.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: To avoid confusion in the referendums, was not the right hon. Gentleman a bit unfair to the Conservative Government in what he said about the social chapter? Has it not been made abundantly clear by the German presidency and by officials of the Commission that almost all of the social chapter will go through under laws related to health and safety in the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome? There will not be any problem about that and we shall all have to abide by those horrible social chapter laws whether we like it or not.
  Dr. Cunningham: I agree in large measure with the hon. Gentleman. If anyone has any doubts about the intention of the German presidency, I refer him to David Gardner's report from Dortmund, which appeared on the front page of this morning's edition of the Financial Times.
  The Austrian Chancellor, Franz Vranitzky, has stressed that Austria's application has been determined by the importance of finding common answers to the economic, social, political and ecological issues that face us all. He cited the safeguarding of Europe's competitiveness in world markets as the foremost challenge of the future. We endorse his views. Europe faces common problems such as the securing of jobs, the prevention of unemployment, the prevention of ecological disasters—which, of course, recognise no boundaries—and the political and economic stabilisation of eastern Europe. We also face the common problem posed by the migration of displaced people as a result of tragedies such as that suffered in the former Yugoslavia. Those common, shared problems demand shared solutions and a common approach.
  The arguments about joining the Union differ in the four applicant countries, although the respective social democratic parties share those Austrian objectives. The Finnish President has called the European Union
  "The central factor in strengthening the security of our continent."
  As the Foreign Secretary said, that represents a major change in that country's stance.
  In Sweden, where we hope that our great friend and colleague Ingvar Carlsson will soon return to power as the head of a Social Democratic Labour Government—the general election comes before the referendum—concern has been expressed that its high standards of social and environmental protection will be weakened as a result of

  699
  membership of the European Union. The Swedes do not share the Foreign Secretary's view of the future of the European Union. They want to see increasingly high standards of social provision and environmental protection imposed. They also share the Opposition's view about the unnecessarily secretive nature of decision taking in the Council of Ministers and in the Commission. The social democrats in Sweden, under whose leadership the original application was made, voted at their party congress on 19 June in favour of recommending that their colleagues should back the application for membership of the Union in the forthcoming referendum.
  Mr. Spearing: We all admire the social provision in Sweden to which my right hon. Friend referred and the support given to it by our friend, who we hope will soon be Prime Minister of Sweden. The Union and the Community do not prohibit the adoption of higher standards than those applied in the Union being written into a member state's national law, if that country so wishes. Would that not automatically put that country at an economic disadvantage in trade in the single market? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that should be borne in mind?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure that I even followed my hon. Friend's argument, let alone agreed with it.
  Competition and productivity have far more to do with per capita investment, plant and equipment, education, training and skills than with employment protection or hourly rates of pay. The idea that we can compete with our major competitors in Europe, the Pacific rim, Japan or the United States on the basis of poverty pay—the thesis advanced by the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues—is one that we reject totally. It is not supported by any economic, industrial or social evidence. The right hon. Gentleman knows that.
  Great concerns have been expressed in Norway about membership of the European Union, but I hope that the decision of our colleagues in the social democratic party to recommend that their supporters should vote yes in the referendum will eventually lead to all four applicant countries receiving the endorsement of their populations so that they can take their place in the expanded Union in 1995.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: The right hon. Gentleman sets great store by those referendums. Last year we were not allowed a referendum because, we were told, it would weaken our system of parliamentary democracy. Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that parliamentary democracy has been weakened in Denmark, Norway or other countries that have held referendums?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. Britain had a referendum in 1975, provided for by the then Labour Government. I am not in the least defensive about referendums. The whole country decided, in a once-and-for-all referendum in 1975, about Britain's membership of the then European Community. In reality, however, those once-and-for-all decisions are never accepted by those who do not win the argument and who therefore want yet more referendums.
  Mr. Hurd: How did the right hon. Gentleman vote?
  Dr. Cunningham: I voted yes. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not slither this way and that on the
  700
  European Union. He favours the hokey-kokey approach to membership of the European Union—in, out, in, out, shake it all about.
  In his speech, the Foreign Secretary mentioned consistency. The Tory party manifesto says:
  "The Conservative Party has remained steadfast on Europe".
  It is interesting to examine that claim in this context. Incidentally, during the European election campaign I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman about that matter, but he never replied to my letter and nor did the Prime Minister.
  In answer to a question in this House, the Foreign Secretary said that it would be a disaster not only for this country but for Greece, where he had discussed the matter, for Portugal and Spain and for many other countries, if there were a two-speed Europe. Yet we are told that the right hon. Gentleman is the architect of a multi-speed, multi-layered, multi-track Europe.
  In November 1990, the Prime Minister said:
  "I don't want a two speed Europe. I think a two speed Europe is unequivocally bad for Europe."
  At the conclusion of the European summit in Birmingham, after the British presidency, the Prime Minister said:
  "No fast track, no slow track, no one left behind, that was a constant theme"
  at the Birmingham summit.
  During the European election campaign, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister referred to:
  "a sensible approach, varying when it needs to, multi-track, multi-speed, multi-layered. It is a Conservative idea".
  How dare the Foreign Secretary conclude that hon. Members have such short memories and that the people of this country forget so quickly the promises and commitments solemnly given in the House of Commons and at European summits about their approach to the European Union? In a desperate attempt to cling on to votes at any price, the Foreign Secretary abandoned all his long-held principles on Europe, whereas I never have. I therefore claim to have shown constant support for the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman used to be able to make such a claim, but he abandoned it for political expediency during last month's elections.
  Mr. Hurd: This will not do. In the 1960s, the Labour party was against membership of Europe. When Lord Wilson was Prime Minister, the Labour party moved in favour. When he left office, having tried unsuccessfully to negotiate membership, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) successfully negotiated membership, Labour turned against. When it was returned to office, it was in favour, although mildly so—that was the time of the referendum. After that, it passed under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and was passionately against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have not followed the right hon. Gentleman's gyrations during that time, but those are the changes about which he challenged me and I am answering the challenge. He cannot speak on behalf of his party on that subject.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary is wriggling. He asked me about my personal position. I told him about that, and then told him about his record. He is now trying to transpose the argument into one about parties. It would be ridiculous to pretend that the Labour party had not changed on Europe, but the right hon. Gentleman asked me about my position and I told him unequivocally what it was

  701
  and is. His problem is that he cannot say the same about his own position. Indeed, he can say nothing consistent about Europe at all.
  Last July in Oxford the Secretary of State for Employment, speaking about the Conservative party and the European People's Party, said:
  "As the union between the peoples of Europe inch by questioning inch grows ever closer, we will need to look for new alliances. I believe that political and ideological alliances between like-minded parties from different countries will soon come to complement or supplant old national rivalries and friendships. Our admittance to the European People's Party in the European Parliament puts that scenario into perspective. There is, even now, a European People's Party office at Smith Square."
  During the European elections, the Foreign Secretary sought to deny that there was a connection between the Conservative party and the European People's party. The Secretary of State for the Environment rose to his aid and said:
  "We are entirely enthusiastic about the EU. We want Europe to grow in unity".
  The problem is that they are "entirely enthusiastic" about it at different speeds, on different layers and on different tracks. That is the governing party's position on Europe.
  It may seem amusing to expose in this Chamber the shifts in the plates which the Foreign Secretary mentioned—the tectonic slipping and the fault lines—but they do massive and enduring damage to this country's interests and standing in the European Union and we all pay a heavy price as a result.
  Mr. Dykes: The House will accept that the right hon. Gentleman has good credentials from that point of view. But will he comment on the Home Secretary's interesting letter in The Times on Thursday, in which he reminded us that it is shocking to recall that as recently as 1983 the putative new leader of the Labour party, in his own election address, called for withdrawal from the European Community?
  Dr. Cunningham: Parliamentary candidates often go with their party line. After all, it is much easier to roll rocks downhill against one's opponents than uphill against one's party. But if we are talking about political judgments along the way, the Foreign Secretary, not as a young parliamentary candidate but as a mature Cabinet Minister, supported the poll tax—£14 billion down the drain; he overruled his accounting officer and gave between £200 million and £300 million to the Pergau dam project; and he gives visas to visiting Iraqi businessmen to meet his friends Lord Weinstock and Lord Prior, in spite of the United Nations' embargo on trade with Iraq. The judgment of someone who has been in high office for many years does not compare with someone standing in a parliamentary election for the first time.
  Mr. Dykes: But someone who wants to be Prime Minister.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary once wanted to be Prime Minister, too. I am not surprised that he did not get far.
  While we are discussing enlargement and consistency, I invite the Foreign Secretary to explain the Government's exact position on the application of Cyprus. Their manifesto—and I have a copy of it here—says that they
  702
  will help Cyprus and Malta to prepare to realise their ambition of European Union membership. In December 1993, the Minister of State said in the House:
  "I should also remind him"—
  referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright)—
  "that the partition of the island is not a prohibition on eventual accession."—[Official Report, 15 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 1054.]
  We share that view. Indeed, we think that membership of the European Union will be part of the solution to the illegal occupation of the island.
  On 27 June, in his report on the European Council in Corfu, the Prime Minister said:
  "Certainly, if the dispute between the north and the south is unresolved, it will be extremely difficult for Cyprus to be admitted to the Community…we hope that that dispute will be resolved before it is possible for Cyprus to become a member of the Union."—[Official Report, 27 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 567.]
  That contradicts what the Minister of State said. As ever, we would like a straight answer. Will Her Majesty's Government go ahead now and actively support the earliest possible accession of Cyprus to the European Union, as we intend to do, using our strength and influence in the European Parliament to pursue that objective?
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has passed from the puerile to a serious point which must be dealt with seriously. Of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right—the existence of the dispute makes it very difficult. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the practical implications of admitting to full membership a country as divided as Cyprus, he must see that it is very difficult. We want to remove those difficulties; we want to see Cyprus admitted. That is one reason—though not the only reason—why we, perhaps more than any other outside country, are working so hard to find a solution. But we are involved. The Prime Minister was party to the statement issued at the Corfu summit which said that in our view Cyprus and Malta would be involved in the next round of enlargement. One cannot say more than that at present. Our attitude is a positive one—to remove the obstacles to the accession of Cyprus. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that is a fair statement.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am little wiser than I was before because the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that
  "our attitude is a positive one—to remove the obstacles".
  The obstacle has been there for 20 years. This year is the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's claims, there is no sign that the Government's active work to resolve the problem is having any effect at all. Indeed, we received alarming reports from our colleagues who visited Cyprus that that active work included Her Majesty's Government's representatives encouraging people to visit north Cyprus, which we do not recognise as a legal entity. We are not very happy about that either. So the Government have a lot to do to convince us that they are genuinely and wholeheartedly backing the accession of Cyprus to membership of the European Union, as, indeed, we are ourselves.
  In 1996, there will be an important intergovernmental conference of the new and, I hope, expanded European Union. Among other things, the Maastricht treaty provides for revision of the pillar structure, widening the scope of the co-decision procedure, revision of common foreign and security decisions, including consideration of defence issues and whether the Union should absorb the Western

  703
  European Union, whether to introduce specific titles in the treaty to cover civil protection in energy and tourism, the hierarchy and classification of Community legislation and, of course, the whole vexed question of institutional reform.
  Let me say clearly and unequivocally that we stand for a Europe of nation states. We do not support a federal Europe, as the right hon. Gentleman wrongly asserted many times and the Conservative central office hand-outs lied time and again during the European election campaign. Nor do we have any intention of abandoning Britain's right of veto. I say that so that the right hon. Gentleman hears it again from me at the Dispatch Box, as he has heard before, in the hope that from now on he will not continue to repeat falsehoods about Labour party policy as, regrettably, he has done in the past.
  Mr. Marlow: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain his party's attitude to, first, deepening and, secondly, the Luxembourg compromise? What is the Labour party's attitude to deepening? What does it mean? What is the right hon. Gentleman's understanding of the Luxembourg compromise? Does it still exist?
  Dr. Cunningham: There is some dispute as to whether the Luxembourg compromise still exists as a legal entity. But as Governments assert that it still exists, and we see no reason to dispute that, the answer is yes. As for deepening of the Community, we are in favour of some deepening of the Community, as we have made clear time and again in relation to the social chapter. We regard the European Union as more than a market and a free trade area.
  We have made it clear—as, incidentally, did Lord Howe and Baroness Chalker—that in some areas there is scope for an extension of qualified majority voting on social and employment policy and on the environment, to give two examples. That is apparently another area where there seems to be some difference of opinion in the Government. In 1986, in this House, Baroness Chalker said:
  "Some have implied that there is majority voting against United Kingdom interests…We cannot criticise the Community for its inability to take decisions, while, on the other hand, we refuse to allow practical improvements that could well assist us".—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 391.]
  Of course, she was talking about qualified majority voting, which was massively extended as right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches guillotined the Single European Act through the House. I hope that we shall have no more of that nonsense in the future. [Interruption.] I think that we all know who the arch-villain was—the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen).
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I am not giving way any more.
  We support the Bill because, above all else, it embodies our consistent policy on enlargement and our support for our friends in Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. I hope that the whole House will support the Bill and that it can be agreed without a Division. If there is a Division, I shall vote for enlargement and for the legislation, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.
  5.37 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: I was glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and his party will support the Bill; I do not think that that has come as any surprise. However, I noticed that he said
  704
  that the reason why he was anxious to do so was that those countries are his political friends. The House must have noted the difference between the way in which he referred to those countries and the way in which he previously referred to Italy and the Italian Government.
  It is a most extraordinary constitutional pronouncement that one can pick and choose the Ministers in the Italian Government with whom one will negotiate. I must say that to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is the most extraordinary attitude to have. Let us suppose that the Labour party were to win the next election and that it then signed up to the social chapter. Are we seriously to believe that the Social Security Minister would decline to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers because an Italian Minister whom he calls a neo-fascist was attending? Such a suggestion is totally ludicrous.
  Dr. John Cunningham: I do not call those people neo-fascists: they call themselves that—that is the point.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would like to answer.
  Mr. Hurd: The people to whom the right hon. Gentleman may be referring are part of the Alleanza Nazionale and are hence part of the Italian Government. Is he advising Her Majesty's Ministers to boycott all meetings in which Ministers of that party participate?
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Member for Copeland if he wants to make his position clear. Certainly, he was making a most extraordinary constitutional pronouncement, which showed yet again that the Labour party is wholly unfit for government; its members cannot even understand basic constitutional points.
  I unreservedly welcome the accession of Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway, all of which will be net contributors to the budget. That has greater appeal, perhaps, to Conservatives than to Labour Members—we are always likely to give a much warmer welcome to countries that will make it less expensive for us to belong to the EU.
  However, the accession of those four countries raises serious problems for the future, and I want to say a little about the problems that will face the intergovernmental conference of 1996. For a start, each country will have one new Commissioner, bringing the total to 21, and the Council of Ministers will also be enlarged. I understand that the inclusion of the four will allow eight countries representing only 12 per cent. of the European Union population to block the wishes of eight countries representing 88 per cent. of it. That is clearly a serious matter that will have to be dealt with in the course of the IGC.
  It is most unlikely that we shall all agree on every proposal coming before the Commission. With the enlargement that the new accession produces, there will be a need to enforce subsidiarity and to use the opt-out whenever necessary. I am glad to welcome the ideas of variable geometry, a multi-speed Europe and so on, all of which arrive at the same point: that we reserve the right to preserve our national interests whenever we see them at risk.
  I offer one or two examples of the difficulties that may be created. The common agricultural policy is a case in point. I understand that in Austria, Norway and Finland

  705
  national agricultural prices are higher than they are in the CAP, and that those countries have been allowed additional national aids—described as temporary—to enable them to adjust their prices to the common European level. It is in our interest and in that of Germany to reduce the cost of the CAP, but it will be in the interests of the Scandinavian countries, and of France and the Mediterranean countries, to keep the CAP prices high. Of course the whole process is controlled by the budget, but strains on it have increased and will increase and must be most carefully curtailed. That matter, too, will come up in 1996.
  Mr. Gill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, before this association agreement, the Swedish Government had agreed a new scheme of agricultural support that would have had the effect of reducing the cost of such support in Sweden but, as a result of the accession treaty, the costs will rise again?
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend has it right. I understood that Sweden met the terms of the treaty right away, but was going to be given some monetary compensation for so doing—but I am not sure.
  The point is that the CAP is bound to be placed under further strain when and if Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic join in the next century. The arguments against the CAP have been rehearsed often enough, but the idea that it should help agricultural communities, not agricultural products, is surely the right way forward. That is best done by national Governments; otherwise, how are we to pay for the huge surpluses that will be produced by Polish and Hungarian agriculture at prices necessary to accommodate Norwegian and Finnish farmers? Those problems loom large for the IGC in 1996.
  Then there are problems with convergence. The costs of convergence are difficult enough in the present EU, but how great would they be if it included Poland, Hungary and the Czechs? It is quite unnecessary to achieve convergence by Government-to-Government transfer. Anyone who examines the substantial investments in Thailand and Malaysia by the Japanese will observe that they are not Government-to-Government transfers; they simply occur because the costs of labour and skills make Malaysia and Thailand attractive to Japanese investors.
  Mr. Budgen: If we roundly declared that we wanted nothing to do with the single currency, we would not need to worry about the enormous cost and distortion brought about by so-called convergence.
  Sir Peter Hordern: If my hon. Friend will contain himself, I shall come to the single currency question.
  It is possible that limited infrastructure projects, if cost effective, are necessary, but we need to be clear about our own interests. I take them to be that we are part of a European Union that is committed to free trade and to GATT in particular. We are also committed to further enlargement of the EU beyond what is envisaged in the Bill, but there is, and always has been, a political element in the European Union. I cannot accept, after all the sacrifices that our country has made in two world wars, that anything but relief and satisfaction are to be found in the closer union between France and Germany. We cannot wish it away.
  706
  I hope and trust that we shall find that that closer union is here to stay. I do not draw comfort, although some apparently do, from the prospect of a newly unified Germany operating on its own to its own agenda, and I cannot believe that the French, the Russians or the Poles do either. All those countries want a closer union in which the interests of Germany are inextricably linked with those of the rest of the European Union.
  We must not be surprised, still less angered, by serious attempts to weld the European Union together by supranational institutions to form a single currency. After all, we have an opt-out of, or rather, an opt-into, the single currency. Some, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), simply wish the whole thing would go away, but it will not go away, and we must face up to that fact.
  It seems to me probable that France, Germany and the Netherlands will meet the Maastricht criteria and will in due course form a single currency, probably by the end of the century. Austria, and possibly the Scandinavian countries too, may also meet the criteria and join. This country will then be faced with a clear choice of whether or not to join.
  We certainly want to meet the Maastricht criteria on prudential grounds alone—nothing to do with the single currency. Let us then suppose that we meet the criteria but a future Parliament decides not to join. Can we imagine that the greater part of our businesses and industry, which carry out their business in the single market, would not decide to transact that business in the European market using the ecu? They would be perfectly entitled to do so. They would simply vote with their feet and do their business in the single currency, just as the oil industry has always done its business in dollars—except that in this case it would probably be done in the hard ecu. We must come to terms with Europe as it is and as it is bound to be, not as some would wish it to be.
  I see nothing wrong with an evolutionary path to a single currency by way of a de facto common currency. That is how I think it will be. Monetary union leading to political union in the sense of a federal European union is nonsense.
  Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend will recall a letter that he wrote to The Times two or three years ago in which he advocated the virtues of a single currency. Does he still advocate that as a matter of principle, contrary to some 70 per cent. of business men in Germany who, according to a recent opinion poll, do not want a single currency? Does he believe that a single currency would be advantageous to the political situation in Europe as it evolves, as he put it?
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am immensely flattered that my hon. Friend should remember what I wrote to The Times three years ago. He remembers it better than I do. At that time I was certainly in favour of Britain joining the ERM with a strong currency and I still hold that view. However, as my hon. Friend has heard, we must look at the way in which events are likely to move. There is likely to be a partial single currency and in practical terms many of our business men will wish to conduct their business in that currency. Therefore, it will be formed into a common currency.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Peter Hordern: I shall give way for the last time because many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute.
  Mr. Marlow: I think that my right hon. Friend is talking about the possibility of a de facto common currency, but not a single currency. Does he agree that a single currency is not so much a matter of commercial convenience but that it effectively means a single European state, a single European economy and a single European Government?
  Sir Peter Hordern: I am coming to those very points. My hon. Friend is right: what is more likely to happen is that our country will be involved in a common currency. However, that is a matter of opinion. As I have said, monetary union necessarily leading to political union in the sense of a federal European Union, to which my hon. Friend referred, is nonsense. For example, we have only to look at the United States where virtually every state has a different sales tax. There are widely differing forms of tax and even wider differences in social benefits. We do not have to have a common system of social benefits or a social chapter to form a closer European Union.
  As I mentioned earlier, investment gravitates to those states with lower taxes, and the same would apply here. We have done well. By having a low tax system we have been able to attract much investment, and I see no reason to give up that advantage. We should not accept for a moment the myth that monetary union necessarily leads to political union. Equally, we should certainly not accept the myth that sterling has always stood on its own, disregarding entirely our link to the gold standard which we had for centuries and to the dollar which we had under Bretton Woods.
  I foresee the time when, whatever we may wish, there will be a strong single currency at the heart of Europe which will act as a common currency for the rest of Europe, including ourselves. I do not believe in a federal Europe, by which I mean the sole or main power to raise taxes resting in a single European Parliament. Nothing can persuade us that the essence of democracy is not to identify as closely as possible democratic institutions with the people in a way that enables them to understand, accept and approve of what is done. That means national Governments with the principal power to tax. The low turnout in the European parliamentary elections, not just in our country but throughout the European Union, should be a lesson to us all.
  The Bill broadens the European Union to take in those countries which have long been democracies and of which we wholly approve. It also provides us with an opportunity to think of what will happen in the European Union, of which we are an important part. To be a positive European does not mean to favour a federal Europe. I like the prospect of closer union between France and Germany and between all other European countries because that means peace and not war.
  I am also a positive European because I like the prospects for Britain in Europe. I certainly see better opportunities for trade and business, but I also see us using our influence to reform the European Union in the direction of an outward-looking community of nations that is better able to deal with the United States and Japan than we possibly could on our own. Above all, we have no need to be frightened of Europe or to be constantly negative. Perhaps we will go at our own speed and no doubt our
  708
  geometry will vary from that of others, but we are part of Europe and always have been, and we might as well be positive about its future.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: The speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) was addressed to his party rather to the House as a whole. His remarks about a common currency as distinct from a single currency were sensible and reassuring. I do not think that any hon. Member would object to the emergence of a further, as it were, reserve currency or common currency of the kind or of the practical use that resulted from using the dollar in post-war periods, gold before the second world war and, indeed, sterling up to about the late 1960s.
  A common currency gives us the freedom to operate with our own currency, except where it is clearly advantageous to operate with a different one. As the right hon. Member for Horsham correctly reminded us, oil trade has been carried on in dollars for a long time, certainly for as long as I can remember. That is perfectly sensible and has caused us no damage.
  If we accept even the principle of the currency following trade, we all know that, although our trade with Europe has grown enormously through trade diversion and the coming together of the economies, it is still less than half our total trade. The logic of what the right hon. Gentleman said is that the other half ought to be conducted either in our own currency or in somebody else's which is a suitable common currency. That was all rather refreshing, and tomorrow I shall study the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great care.
  I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has disappeared, because I have a few remarks to address to him. His optimism never ceases to amaze me. He really believes that Europe is developing along the ways and paths that he would like to see it pursue. To cite the treaty of accession which is the subject of our debate as evidence of the European Community's abandonment of centralisation, of deepening and consolidating and centralising in favour of widening, was a remarkable example of the Foreign Secretary's almost infinite capacity for self-deception.
  This is a three-clause Bill. European Community Bills are always short, but they carry with them an enormous load of text. In this case the three clauses conceal about 365 pages of the treaties. We are dealing with Austria, Sweden, Finland and Norway. In a way, it may be a little premature to approve or disapprove of the Bill because, as we all know, apart from Austria, the other three countries mentioned in the accession treaty have yet to hold referendums. I have no serious doubts that Finland will vote positively in a referendum, but it is sensible to put a considerable question mark over Sweden and Norway.
  Those of us whose memories go back to at least 1972 will recall that Norway reached this same point on the road to joining the European Community, but the people of Norway asserted that their view was different from that of those who negotiated on their behalf. In the referendum then held in Norway, the people decisively rejected the proposal for entry. If that happens again, there will have to be changes in some crucial paragraphs of the treaty, because it is obviously based upon the assumption that four countries will join.

  709
  I have always thought that the great discussion about the blocking minimum and so on was, to say the least, rather premature. It is not clear what benefits the applicant countries hope to gain through membership, beyond those that they already have as members of the European economic zone. Indeed, I can envisage considerable disadvantages, especially now that the earlier obligations of joining the European Community have been added to by the many and much more difficult commitments contained in the Maastricht treaty.
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 385 pages—I hate to correct him, but he said 365 pages—of the treaty. On page 9, it talks about qualified majority voting, to which he has just referred. It says that qualified majority voting will require
  "64 votes in favour, cast by at least 11 members."
  If, under the procedures, Norway or Norway and Sweden do not join, the Council will look at the matter again and come forward with decisions. Those decisions have to be taken by unanimity. Suppose those two countries vote no and decide not to join the Union. As long as there is no unanimity, one presumes that a qualified majority will be 64 votes and 11 member states. Is that correct?
  Mr. Shore: I am not sure about that, but it is a question that could quite properly be addressed to the Government. I should be interested to hear the reply. What I am saying is that there are possible complexities ahead that were not entirely dealt with in the Foreign Secretary's speech.
  Of course, it is the peoples of the applicant countries who decide. From a purely selfish British point of view, I would welcome their adherence—in particular, that of Finland, Sweden and Norway. They have a powerful social democratic tradition, which I share, and their histories of robust independence give me the strong sense that they will be potential allies in the forthcoming struggles between those who wish to achieve a minimum Europe of national states and those who seek to secure a maximum Europe of a neo-federalist character.
  My feeling is that—although we cannot be certain about it—the instincts of such sturdy, independent people will place them on our side in many of the arguments that lie ahead.
  Mr. Cash: Is there not another agenda here, which is the possibility of a German Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, as many countries do privately, that that is the direction in which we are moving? The recent Karlsruhe court judgment said that there should be not a Bundestat but a Staatenverbund. That is quite different, one being a federal Europe and the other a confederation. Since that judgment, the Christian Democrat party has now reverted to the idea of a federal Europe and Bundestat, and so has its partner, the FDP. In other words, we need to beware.
  Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I shall say something later about recent trends in opinions and proposals coming out of Germany that are of concern for the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
  The immediate issue that the accession treaty has posed to us and other Community members is the voting formula to be used for qualified majority voting. At present, the
  710
  blocking minority is 23 out of a total of 76 votes. In future, despite the Prime Minister's almost embarrassingly unsuccessful efforts at the last minute to avert it, the blocking minority will be 27 out of a total of 90 votes. I know that it is also agreed that best endeavours must be made where the blocking minority falls between 23 and 27, but best endeavours are not a strong line of defence against the minimum blocking vote of 27 in the treaty.
  What worries me is not just the increased size of the blocking minority, but the fact that so much emphasis has been placed on a blocking minority. I take it to mean that in practice, although not verbally, the Luxembourg compromise of the famous national veto is falling into disuse. There is a lack of self-confidence in member Governments to assert that they have a veto and will use it.
  I say that with the utmost regret because I well remember the document in the referendum of 1975 issued by the then Government. It recommended a yes vote on the basis that, under the heading
  "Will Parliament lose its Power?",
  there was the assurance:
  "It is the Council of Ministers and not the market's officials who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests."
  That was the basis of that referendum, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) promises never to hold again, because that referendum settled matters once and for all. That is not easy to square with the fact that the referendum on Scottish devolution was rejected, yet we are committed to having another one, which, if it is accepted by the Scottish people, presumably we will accept.
  The veto power was guaranteed to the British people as a condition of their assent through the referendum in 1975 to Britain remaining part of the European Community. It matters very much, because it is part of the faith that should exist between Government and people. The Government should mean what they say and abide by their commitments.
  Dr. John Cunningham: My right hon. Friend and I take different positions on this matter. The Labour party's policy position does not rule out referendums, depending on what may emerge either on the question of 1996 and the intergovernmental conference or on other matters. I was referring to the referendum that gave the British people the choice to say whether or not Britain should stay in the European Union. My right hon. Friend may think that that question should be put to the people every two, three, four or five years. I do not agree with him. The people were given the opportunity to make a decision, and they did so overwhelmingly.
  Mr. Shore: I accept what my right hon. Friend says up to a point, which is that the referendum was about membership of the European Economic Community, not membership of the European Union with its far more extravagant ambitions. I take it that my right hon. Friend has at least given me a partial reassurance that he would not necessarily oppose a new referendum on proposals for ever closer union within the European Union.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend again that that is the position. Throughout the

  711
  European election campaign, we made it absolutely clear—I said it myself on many occasions, and I am happy to say it again on the record—that it is not ruled in or out.
  Mr. Shore: I am especially pleased that my right hon. Friend has said on the record that the Labour party is opposed to a federal Europe, and that it will abide by and hold on to such use of the veto power as is contained in the unanimity provisions of the treaty of Rome. Good, we are making progress.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman said that the fact that the veto was slipping into desuetude was due to a lack of self-confidence among member countries. We could also argue that it was due to a reduction in obduracy and an increase in consensual decision making.
  Mr. Shore: To be fair, there is another and much more important cause. Given Lady Thatcher's general attitude towards the European Union and British sovereignty, it is curious that, when Prime Minister, through signing the Single European Act she opened the way for qualified majority voting on a much larger scale than had ever previously been envisaged. I know that that is a difficult fact for many Conservative Members to accept and acknowledge. Nevertheless, that is why so much was abandoned in the use of the national veto under the Luxembourg compromise formula.
  The issue of qualified majority voting, the blocking minimum and the veto is of growing importance, not less. I say that for two reasons, First, we all hope that this treaty of accession will be followed by further accession treaties in which, in the first place, the Visegrad countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia—will join, and there may well be others after that. If every new accession brings further adjustment to the voting formula and weakens our capacity to safeguard our interests—particularly against the thrust of Euro-federalism—we will not easily accept or stomach that. That is cause for considerable concern.
  We are already on the road to the next IGC in 1996—a commitment that is part of the Maastricht treaty. We cannot be sure how far-reaching and wide-ranging that conference will be, but we know that article B of the Maastricht treaty identifies in particular the common foreign and security pillar and the justice and home affairs pillar. It states:
  "the policies and forms of co-operation introduced by this, treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community."
  Article N of the Maastricht treaty states:
  "a conference of representatives of the governments of Member States ... shall be convened"
  in 1996. We know what lies ahead, and we may be certain that we shall have a traumatic time beating off the Euro-federalists in that conference.
  There is only a short breathing space. At the meetings in Ioannina and Corfu, it was decided to establish a so-called reflection committee. A communiqué issued after the recent Corfu summit referred to
  "a Reflection Group consisting of representatives of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Member States and the President of the Commission. It will be chaired by a person appointed by the Spanish government and begin its work in June 1995. Two European Parliament representatives will participate in the work of the Reflection Group. The Group will also have exchanges of views with the other institutions and organs of the European Union."
  712
  For some of us, 1995 is not far ahead but-wait for it-action is starting earlier than that. The communiqué continued:
  "The Institutions are invited to establish before the start of the work of the Reflection Group reports on the functioning of the Treaty of European Union, which will provide an input for the work of the Group."
  Some ambitious proposals are being thought out and framed. I refer to only one set—which comes, of course, from Germany. Proposals from Herr Bitterlich, who I understand is Chancellor Kohl's personal foreign policy adviser, came out of a think tank associated with the Bertelsmann Foundation. The Financial Times had this to say about them:
  "In a report which reflects widespread thinking at the highest levels of the German government, the group spelt out proposals for a bi-cameral system which would put the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers on an equal footing."
  A lower chamber and upper chamber of a legislature is how they see the future of the Council of Ministers.
  A report in The Guardian added that the President of the Commission would be nominated and elected by Members of the European Parliament and would be empowered to appoint Commissioners to a reduced number of posts—a kind of Cabinet. The report added:
  "The commission would take on the hue of a European government."
  I am not saying that that is necessarily the sole or most strongly backed proposal that will come before us in 1996, but some powerful pro-federal forces remain unchecked in Europe. They have been buried in the institutions of the European Parliament, and they are embedded in the whole structure and ethos of the Commission, the European Court, and the hearts and minds of the ruling political classes of many countries of continental Europe. We must be ready for a prolonged and difficult struggle.
  If the Foreign Secretary were right about the success of British ideas and how subsidiarity and all the other British intergovernmental arrangements have carried the field in Europe, we could relax. It is simply because the Foreign Secretary has got it so wrong that we must be on our guard and prepare for a bitter fight between now and the end of 1996. That is the task ahead.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: The speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) reminded us that the virus of scepticism is not confined to these Benches. What was particularly attractive was his exchange with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), which authorised with the strength of Labour's Front Bench that Labour is hostile to a federal Europe, is in favour of a Europe of nation states and argues for the maintenance of our national veto. After a while, I began to wonder what, as time unfolds, Labour will supply to the European debate that is distinctive.
  Mercifully, the right hon. Member for Copeland pre-empted my anxieties in that respect. Labour would take into the Union its time-honoured characteristic of proscription. Every party and every Government would be tested to see if they passed Labour's good housekeeping arrangements. The question was raised of the Italian Government. Let us not be delicate. The right hon. Member for Copeland did not mean that he would refuse to sit down and share spaghetti with Signor Berlusconi. It is Signor Fini about whom the right hon. Gentleman has great reservations.

  713
  I challenge the right hon. Member for Copeland to name the name that gives rise to the proposition that there are Ministers in the Italian Government with whom a Labour Government would have no contact. That is no way for a potential Government to behave towards European Union partners. If the Union cannot inspire some sense of tolerance, it will never have any chance of longer success.
  I do not regard the exchange earlier today as flippant July madness. The assertion that there are Ministers in the present Italian Government with whom members of a Labour Government would be unwilling to co-operate is an indication that Labour is taking into the Union a sectarian attitude to its functioning that would falsify all Labour's other ambitions.
  Mr. Radice: I understand that the European People's party is not enthusiastic about those particular persons, with whom the right hon. Gentleman's party is loosely associated. Others object as well.
  Mr. Biffen: That is simply considered. I invite the hon. Gentleman to name one continental European Government containing members of the EPP who have said that they will not sit down and discuss matters with certain members of the Italian Government.
  It is quite simple. As we go through political life, we often have reservations about those people with whom we have to have daily contact. Frankly, within this Chamber, calculated unease is an integral part of how we operate. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have problems enough, in the course of European co-operation, without the self-imposed and sanctimonious barriers that are being sought.
  Mr. David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Biffen: No, I shall not give way. I shall make a short speech, thus giving the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to address the House.
  As this is the first time that we have debated the subject since the European elections, I pay my respects and regards to the right hon. Sir Christopher Prout, who led the Conservatives at Strasbourg and was my European Member of Parliament—the Member for Staffordshire and Shropshire. He contributed significantly to Conservative fortunes in Europe, although in terms with which I often disagreed. It would be appropriate to place that tribute on the record, and I hope and believe that those on the Government Front Bench will endorse it.
  The European Union (Accessions) Bill has achieved a good draw for a non-voting occasion, which goes to show that the issue is at the heart of British politics, wherever else it is. Why? Because Euro-scepticism, as advanced from the Conservative Benches, has made it into a major political issue. That is a tribute to this institution—the House of Commons—without which the exercise could not have been mounted in such a way.
  I understand that the Prime Minister addressed the 1922 Committee last Thursday. I try to avoid too much emotion and excitement. I was not there, and I am dependent on a report in The Times, which stated that he said:
  "As the membership"
  of the European Union
  "expands, it will be impossible for the centralist model to continue".
  Mr. Budgen: More.
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) pertinently observes that one would like a little more definition of the interplay between widening and deepening, in the context of the assertion that
  "it will be impossible for the centralist model to continue".
  That will be the subject of continuing debate for this Chamber in the coming months and years.
  I shall consider the Bill in the context of three matters: European diversity, qualified majority voting, and the common agricultural policy. Out of deference to all the other hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall do so at breakneck speed and ask for tolerance for my brevity when considering those three major points.
  First, of course the Bill will add to the diversity of Europe. There is an extraordinary unwillingness to recognise that, from its very inception, the European Community had aspects that were by implication diverse—for example, the fact that the Federal German Republic had a relationship with the German Democratic Republic which made it unique within the Community, and powerfully unique.
  There is also the central paradox that the industrial aspects of the Community were dominated by liberal economics, whereas agriculture was dominated by the highest common factor of protectionism. We can expect that to increase with increased membership, as different social structures have to be adapted to the confines of the European Union, and as certain fashions are replaced or challenged by other fashions.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends may not be too excited at that prospect, but I do not believe that anyone will persist with the same enthusiasm and decisiveness with the liberal economics that dominated the early phases of the Community, especially as the Union enlarges to the east. Hungary and Poland are already moving away from their original preoccupation and fascination with market forces. At this stage, no one can foresee what the balance of social and economic fashion will be as we proceed. However, we are fully entitled to judge that, if the Union is to be a successful partnership of nation states, it cannot be shackled to any economic ideology.
  Secondly, qualified majority voting can be reconsidered in the light of the accession of these countries. That was made clear in the Ioannina statement, ahead of the 1996 renegotiation. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will persist with the arguments on qualified majority voting that they advanced unsuccessfully last March. I do not regard my attitude as especially nationalistic—not that that does any harm—as the European Union is bedevilled by bureaucracy. I fully accept that the Single European Act was probably the most decisive development in that direction. My hands are as stained as anyone's. I am here not to apologise but to assert what I believe to be an observable political truth.
  I cannot see any easy way out of the difficulty. That bureaucracy will destroy any idealism for the European Union that might exist. In as much as it gives slightly more chance of blocking the initiation of legislation, qualified majority voting should be welcomed—and welcomed as much by members of the Labour party as by Conservative Members. We have now got out of the way the tactical problems caused by persistence with the British stance on qualified majority voting and what it might do to affect the

  715
  successful applications of these countries. We can now consider such voting in a more relaxed atmosphere. I hope that Opposition Members will also see some virtues in trying to impede the flow of legislation and understand what that legislation is doing to general affection and support for the European Union.
  Finally, most hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned the common agricultural policy. It is clear that we are taking on four national agricultures, each with remarkably distinctive characteristics. None of them is large, but all represent powerful political considerations for each of the nation states.
  Surely we ought to begin to try to apply the principles of subsidiarity when relating those national agricultures to the existing common agricultural policy. If we cannot do so now, and cannot achieve some clear successes soon, it will be impossible to draw up a framework for the inclusion of the agricultures of applicant countries from central and eastern Europe. In every sense, we are on Euro-borrowed time as far as that matter is concerned.
  Once again, that issue ought not to be the cause of division across the Chamber. I do not believe that it is seriously at issue. In the reform of the CAP, supporting qualified majority voting and ensuring an inherent diversity in the European Union, we are all talking sceptic language. As the centre of the debate moves, the sceptics will march with it.
  6.29 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am no sceptic, and I do not speak sceptics' language. I should have loved to follow a good many of the points made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—for instance, his delightfully throwaway, cavalier comment "What's wrong with nationalism anyway?"—but time is pressing.
  Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the impending accession of Austria and—conditional on their referendums—Finland, Sweden and Norway. The addition of four prosperous and stable democracies can only strengthen the Union in all spheres of its activity. However—as a number of hon. Members have pointed out—that enlargement will place great strains on the existing institutional framework, and its reform must be addressed urgently in advance of the 1996 intergovernmental conference. As the Foreign Secretary said, we also need to look forward to the adhesion of the central and eastern European countries, and in time—almost certainly—that of Malta and Cyprus; Switzerland will probably change its position as well.
  First, we must consider the size of the Commission, the way in which its members are appointed—not least the President—and the extent of the European Parliament's involvement. Let me digress for a moment, and comment on the Corfu affair. Jean-Luc Dehaene, a Belgian, was the Franco-German nominee for the presidency. Why did all that happen? On 26 June, The Observer commented—in an editorial, not a news item—
  "The idea, promulgated by John Major and Douglas Hurd yesterday that Britain was opposing the Franco-German candidate, Jean-Luc Dehaene, because of the manner of the choosing—rather than the man who would have been chosen—is so much hogwash.
  The President of the Commission has always been chosen behind the scenes by the leaders of the European states."
  The "white smoke" system may be wrong, incidentally,
  716
  but hon. Members should note that there is no record of the United Kingdom's having opposed it in the past, and no record of our having sought to change it.
  The editorial continues:
  "Helmut Kohl raised the name of Dehaene to John Major a couple of months ago and received no objection. Indeed, the Prime Minister had none at that time."
  I should like to know whether that is true, because, if it is, the Prime Minister must have been consulted in April. An Observer editorial would normally be regarded as a reasonably authoritative and reliable piece of paper.
  The article goes on:
  "What has happened since is that the presidency has become an issue in the Conservative Party, a litmus test of Major's willingness to stand up against the Continentals. The Prime Minister has chosen to take his stand for reasons wholly of domestic politics."
  I think that that is true, and that it reflects badly on the Government.
  I do not know how many hon. Members saw The Independent's Saturday magazine the day before yesterday. I thought that one of its cartoons summed up the position beautifully. It showed a man looking gloomily at a poster on a wall, apparently advertising either aftershave or deodorant, and an extremely pugnacious, lantern-jawed Prime Minister holding the valuable elixir; the slogan read "Veto—for Men!"
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Russell Johnston: For the hon. Gentleman, what else could I do?
  Mr. Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Jean-Luc Dehaene was responsible for delivering to Chancellor Kohl the siting of the central bank in Frankfurt? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that might have had something to do with—quite apart from Mr. Dehaene's federal inclinations—his determination to ensure that he was repaid for the good services that he had rendered?
  Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman not think—as we are in the business of "thinking", which of course is a good thing—that the siting of the central bank in Frankfurt had a good deal to do with the United Kingdom's failure to accept any commitment to economic and monetary union or a single currency? Of course it did.
  I believe that the whole question reverts to the continuing inability of the British political establishment to understand consensus decision-making, and its tendency to favour sporadic macho-dramatics instead. Another recent example of that was the qualified-majority adjustment to take account of enlargement; I know that it has already been discussed, but I think that our position was silly.
  Reducing the number of Commissioners—if that is the favoured route—would not be easy, and I would be foolish to try to present a scheme now. I find two ideas particularly interesting, however. First, there is the possibility of retaining the same pattern rather than reducing the number, while increasing the number of vice-presidents and giving them the core responsibilities for policy. Secondly, there is the possibility of acting on a regional basis—Iberian, Benelux, Nordic and so forth. Either way, something must be done.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I have only just taken the Chair and I must admit to being slightly confused. I thought that the House was debating the Second Reading

  717
  of a Bill enabling other countries to accede to the European Union, but so far I have not heard much on that subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to relate his remarks to the main subject under consideration.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I can only say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that none of my remarks relates to matters that have not been raised by other hon. Members. It is inevitable—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not had the pleasure of hearing what other hon. Members have said; I am concerned only with what happens here and now, when I am in the Chair.
  Sir Russell Johnston: If we are dealing with enlargement, Madam Deputy Speaker, must we not inevitably deal with its consequences—its effects on the European institutions, and on the Union as a whole?
  The second point that I am anxious to make—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I clarify what I said? If the hon. Member can make an adequate and convincing connection, I shall have no objection; my point was simply that, at the time when I was listening to his speech, he seemed to be making no such connection.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am extremely sorry if that was your feeling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall do my utmost to follow your wishes.
  In the event of accession, the European Parliament will at some point have to be revamped. It is impossible to contemplate the possibility of a continuing and unlimited increase in size. That will mean that it must also be made more proportional to population. The Foreign Secretary raised the point earlier in relation to qualified majority voting, but he did not mention the fact that the Germans, for instance, are undoubtedly severely under-represented in the European Parliament. Problems such as that will have to be corrected at the same time.
  The Nordic countries—three of which are to join the Union—have a particularly open form of democracy which, in my view, is far superior to ours. They will certainly be allies to those of us who wish the Parliament's co-decision-making powers to be increased, and want its involvement in the individual approval of Commissioners.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman and I were colleagues in the European Parliament when it was much smaller in terms of countries. He may recollect that, even then, there were great difficulties of translation. How will those difficulties be overcome if the Nordic countries take up their right to use their own language? There will be a great demand for tranlations of Swedish into Greek and Portuguese into Norwegian. Will there not be real physical problems?
  Sir Russell Johnston: The short answer is, yes there are. The three new languages will undoubtedly cause not only interpretation, but translation problems and cost.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: They will throw even more of our money at it to solve the problems.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is touching on a peculiarly sensitive issue: a country's language. We are lucky because most of us speak tolerable
  718
  English. For the Finns, the Norwegians and the Swedes, language is a touchstone. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that fact.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He remarked, I think to general agreement, that the form of democracy enjoyed by some of our Nordic friends may be superior to our own. If decisions are taken away from their Parliaments, will not that risk the atrophy of their democracies, and therefore diminish their quality, on which we all agree?
  Sir Russell Johnston: Let me think about that—I know that that is unusual in the House. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who has had views on this matter for a long time, it is a question not of taking all powers away from the old Parliaments, but of taking certain direct responsibilities away from them and transferring them to the Council and to the European Parliament. That will not necessarily lead to the atrophy of what is left.
  The Nordic countries will be particularly supportive of opening up the Council of Ministers and of seeking to end the excessive secrecy through which it makes decisions, which often even denies us information on who took up what position and why. With regard to the Council, the other main question relates to the scope of qualified majority voting, whether there will be a case for greater weighting for some decisions, and if so, what decisions. I do not think that opting out is a solution.
  The Bill's explanatory memorandum states:
  "Austria, Norway and Sweden are expected to be net contributors to the Community budget. They will contribute more than enough resources to cover the increase in Community spending resulting from enlargement. The balance will reduce the financial contributions of the existing Member States, including that of the United Kingdom, compared with what would otherwise have been the case."
  That is a funny way of putting it. The reference to the UK suggests that it is not one of the existing member states. That may be legally necessary, but it is odd.
  Not only as a result of accession but for other reasons, a review of the budgetary position will be required. That particularly affects us because of the United Kingdom rebate. We have concentrated too much on saying that we must keep the rebate. We should take a lead in trying to devise a system that relates gross national product to contribution—an outcome that would be fair to ourselves and to others.
  I have not so far used the word "federal", which has often been bandied about, but the future European Union will be a federal Europe not a unitary Europe, and the accession of the four countries increases that likelihood. In those matters that we undertake together—political policy, which includes foreign policy, security and defence, economic and environmental policy—we must devise systems that give not only Governments—this is where I part company with the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North—but our citizens a direct opportunity to play a part in decision making at European Union level. The Liberal Democrat view of tomorrow's Europe is of a citizens' Europe, not an intergovernmental Europe.
  The Foreign Secretary referred to the central and eastern European countries, which are still out in the cold, but which we all agree should ultimately accede. We need more than generalities of intent, even if they are well expressed. We need more open trade arrangements and to

  719
  be more specific in establishing a clearly defined time scale on membership of the Visegrad and Baltic countries, Slovenia and others.
  I should like to continue, but time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak. The accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden is greatly welcomed by Liberal Democrats, and I very much hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading without a Division.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. David Howell: I do not want to be accused of the crime of optimism, but I welcome the accession of the four new members, assuming that it takes place in all four cases, because the changes greatly reinforce the opening up of a range of issues about the direction of Europe which have hitherto been closed. The institutional structure must be revamped. The institutional discussion will involve the size of the European Commission and its powers.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), has rightly said that reviewing those powers in 1996 is an objective of British policy. Accession will change the entire style in which the Community is run and take us aeons away from the old Common Market, the old European Economic Community and even the European Community, which we joined some years ago and which many of us thought was the right way towards the great single market of 1992.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said, with his usual insight and shrewdness, accession will change and challenge the common agricultural policy, the root foundation block of the old EEC, the deal between France and Germany secured by the great European statesmen, which would keep the whole thing together. There is no conceivable way in which the CAP as presently structured can even accommodate the Eftans. Finnish agriculture is a mix of earth and forest; Swedish agriculture is also different; Austrian agriculture is not that different from German or Swiss agriculture, but it is different from that in other countries. Norwegian agriculture is different again.
  If the EFTA countries join, all those matters will have to be rejigged. If we move on, as I hope we shall, and bring in the Visegrad four and Slovenia, which has not applied but which, like the Visegrad countries, is anxious to come in on the coat tails of Austria, the concept of the CAP will be dissolved. There is no conceivable way in which the agricultural sectors in Poland or Hungary, which have a huge capacity and which could feed almost the whole of Europe, can be opened up and allowed to market their products, raise living standards and ensure that they achieve a democratic process and progress. That cannot be done without a fundamental reform of the centralised agricultural system on which the Community has been based.
  That is one practical example of a much larger picture that is opening up as a result of the proposed accession of the new members. I welcome that even more because it gives us a chance to begin to develop our vision of the direction in which Europe will go in and after 1996. I agree that we should get on with that. We cannot wait for this funny reflection group, the prepatory committee, which is
  720
  to be chaired by a Spanish gentleman and which is to be intergovernmental but, oddly, will include two Members of the European Parliament.
  The matter should be triggered by the Bill, the act of accession of the three and the clamour of the Visegrad four to join the European Union, or at least to join in the political process of the Union, in the pillars of interior and justice matters and in a common foreign and security policy, if not the single market. We cannot wait around for the reflection group to reflect.
  Nor can we wait for certain cliques in Bonn, Paris and Madrid to hijack the presidency for a whole series of six-month periods from now until 1996 and to impose through that device a totally federalist, out-dated and old-fashioned agenda. We cannot wait for any of those things.
  Instead, we must get on and seize the opportunity, which I believe is presented in ever greater openness to us, to develop the alternative vision of Europe. We have now a golden opportunity to fill out in detail what we mean by a multi-track and multi-layered Europe, and to explain how we intend to set out an agenda that will challenge the old idea, which is still, I am afraid, enshrined in Maastricht, that all European affairs should be wrapped in a single hierarchical structure, and that a single institutional system should embrace everything.
  We must challenge the idea that eventually the pillar of the single market should, by magnetism, pull the other pillars into a gigantic single trunk. We must show how we intend to go in another direction, how we have allies in the rest of Europe who will also move in that other direction, and how we intend to reinforce, and in some cases actually give, the intellectual lead so that that can be achieved.
  Right hon. and hon. Members may say that my view is all optimism. The cry from Opposition Front-Bench Members has been that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is indulging in self-delusion, and that these changes are not happening. I tell the doubters what the new countries, such as Finland, are saying. Of course, for the moment, they are saying, "Let us just sign up. We want to get into the Union. Don't bother us with the details and the arguments; that will come later. We shall accept the acquis. Everything else will fall into place later."
  Those countries are also saying to themselves that they cannot go on with the much-vaunted social policies and the much-vaunted economic policies that they have adopted in the past. We have heard a great deal about the glories of Scandinavian social policy. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) seems to have forgotten that, in Finland, there is 20 per cent. unemployment and that the Finns are crippled by the most enormous social budget.
  The whole level of debate in Finland is about how to introduce deregulation, how to unscramble the overwhelming social burden, and how to move into an entirely modern stance, which would fit not with the Brussels of the social chapter and not with the Brussels of high Maastricht, but with a looser and much more competitive Europe. That is the debate going on in Finland. If the hon. Member for Rhondda thinks that that is not going on, he is ill informed and out of date.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Is the right hon. Gentleman contending that unemployment in Scandinavian countries and in other countries is due to decent living and working conditions? If unemployment exists, as the Government say, because of factors outside

  721
  their control, surely that argument applies to Scandinavia as well. Surely unemployment is not directly related to the fact that the Scandinavian countries believe in decent conditions for workers.
  Mr. Howell: What I am saying—I point to the facts—is that the much-vaunted social policies which Opposition Members believe to be so important—indeed, they act for the reinforcement of more centralised social policy in Brussels—have not brought the high standard of living, the glowing harmony and the high employment that we all want to see.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I take up my right hon. Friend's earlier point about this enlargement being only stage one of two stages of enlargement. The reality may be that the Germans and others will say, "We have given the British their prize of enlargement, so we can now get on with our other agenda. Let us push these others, who would really lead to reform of the institutions, to one side." We must leap into this now, and not hold back.
  Mr. Howell: I totally agree. However, I do not fear that there will be resistance from Germany to bringing in the Visegrad four, as my hon. Friend suspects. On the contrary, the Germans, as they have been almost since the creation of modern Germany, are in the usual dilemma.
  Germany is a huge country dominating the middle of Europe, but the Germans do not know whether to follow their powerful instinct to bring the states of eastern Europe as fast as they can into the European Union and into the security system, whether to put that second to binding themselves with France, or whether somehow to avoid the choice. Of course there is a choice, and it creates turbulence and a lack of clarity in German politics. That is interesting for the analyst outside, but it is a little disturbing.
  However, I believe that the Germans will try to do both at once. They will seek to ensure that the Visegrad four come in, for a good reason. In a sense, they want countries with western values on their eastern border, as they have on their western border. They want a westernised eastern and central Europe, and that is why, for political reasons, they are already backing the entry of the Visegrad four in a way that makes the French extremely uncomfortable.
  That point leads me to the view, which has not been mentioned today, that the Franco-German federalist axis, which is alleged to be so unstoppable and which, it is believed, will roll forward and impose a federalist agenda, is not as strong in its content and its inner meaning as it has been in the past. Major differences are emerging between the French and the Germans which should be understood, although not necessarily welcomed all the way, because we do not want the French and Germans to get into a state of hostility, as has been the case in the past 100 years. There are major questions, however, which take the French and the Germans in distinctly different ways.
  It is essential that we back the German aim of bringing the eastern European countries into the European Union as fast as possible. I hope that the House sees the point that they cannot join the great single market tomorrow, but that they should be given the opportunity to join in any political developments outside the single market as soon as possible, and that they should be involved politically in every conceivable way.
  722
  I want to see those countries involved in security terms which means going further than "Partnership for Peace". I have never been very comfortable with the "Partnership for Peace" idea. It may suit Finland, one of the new accession countries, because of its position vis-a-vis Russia. It may suit some of the Baltic states, and it may suit Russia, which is signed up to it. However, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland are ready to move into a full, proper European security system and would like to do so as soon as possible.
  I hope that the enlargement of NATO can embrace the eastern and central European countries, including any of the new countries joining the European Union, as soon as possible. I hope that we do not wait for Russia to struggle through all its own agonies and to work out its democratic problems. That could take decades, and it is on a completely different time scale from the needs of eastern Europe and the Visegrad four, which, as I said, I hope will follow the accession four with which we are now dealing.
  This is a crucial moment, when we can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, begin to pile on the pace. We can begin to say that, now that we have the 15 or 16 and now that we have opened up the institutional and constitutional issues of how Europe should be organised, how we entrench subsidiarity, how we limit the powers of the Commission, how we build a Europe that is constitutionally of nation states, and how we halt the tendency for the whole thing to drift in a centralised direction, now is the opportunity to achieve the real objective of European union, which is to recapture for the democratic camp the lost states of eastern and central Europe which we thought we had won back at the end of the second world war but which were taken from us.
  That movement is the greatest opportunity and the great leap forward of 1996. It is not a great leap forward towards an unattainable monetary union based on an unattainable single currency. It is not a great leap forward towards more federal institutions and a tighter, inward-looking western Europe. We do not want that kind of great leap forward. We want the great leap forward towards bringing these countries into the democratic system. That is a vision which I hope all hon. Members will articulate with more confidence than we have in the past.
  We have a great confederation and a gigantic single market which runs from Finland and Lapland in the east to Lisbon in the west, and from the toe of Italy up to John O'Groats and to the northernmost point of Europe. It is a huge single market for which we should work. I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will include some qualified majority voting, perhaps in areas which we have not yet covered, and perhaps not in areas which are covered at present.
  Outside that, we may employ the multi-track and multi-speed approach to all the additional political, defence and foreign-policy ambitions, as well as to the ambitions for intrusion into the nooks and crannies of social and national life in every conceivable and unnecessary way, and we need not insist on a single hierarchy and a single institutional system.
  There is a vision out there which is receiving greater and greater support from people in all parts of Europe. Luckily, it unites—or should unite—the party of which I am a member. It should unite this Parliament, and it will unite Europe in taking itself forward to become a larger organisation, which will ensure peace and stability, and postpone for ever the return of the war which destroyed Europe in the past.
  7 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: May I briefly address the final comments of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)? I certainly agree that the next great challenge and leap forward for the European Union is the possible accession of the Visegrad countries, perhaps in a decade's time, followed by others. There is a curious irony that those countries, as the right hon. Gentleman said, will show far greater enthusiasm for and sympathy towards the military alliance of the European Union than the four impending members which we are discussing. That is not necessarily altogether in their favour, but it shows the eagerness with which those countries in central and eastern Europe wish to join the European Union. Therefore, I share with the right hon. Gentleman the hope that it will not be too long—probably a decade—before we consider the impending accession of those countries.
  Along with the vast majority of hon. Members, I welcome the accession of the four countries in question. I share all the sentiments expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and echo what has been said about the empathy that we have with those four countries and the way in which we are looking forward, as social democrats, to working with them if—hopefully—they all accede lo the European Union from January 1995. Most of the speeches have concentrated primarily on one pillar of the European Union: the economic community. That is clearly an important pillar, but I do not feel that sufficient regard has been paid to one of the other pillars of the Union—the common foreign and security policy which the Maastricht treaty established. I wish to address my remarks to the difficulties that we are likely to face after the accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden to the European Union.
  Hon. Members do not need me to remind them that the Maastricht treaty established three pillars: first, the economic community; secondly, the internal aspects of the Union; and, thirdly, foreign and security policy. It also designated the Western European Union as the defence arm of common foreign and security policy. We have been struggling since then to get some kind of coherent common foreign and security policy which could be accepted by the present 12 members of the European Union. We have been struggling, but recent events, especially in the former Yugoslavia, show how little progress we have made in that regard. Inevitably, national interests have been paramount and have tended to hamper the search for a common foreign and security policy. In the case of Yugoslavia, we can cite Germany's natural tendency towards Croatia, and, more recently, Greek sympathy towards the Serbs. We have had that difficulty with the present 12 and such difficulties will probably increase with the accession of the four new countries.
  If we consider the facts, three out of the four countries are traditionally neutral. I find it paradoxical that the Foreign Secretary of Sweden and the President of Finland have stated that they wish to enter the European Union. One of the reasons for that is that it will offer them greater security. They want greater security through membership of the European Union, but they are not prepared to be members of any of the military alliances which bind the core members. Clearly, that may well alter with the passage of time. Indeed, there have already been indications, especially from the Finnish, that their attitudes may alter, particularly after 1996. However, this Bill deals
  724
  with the here and now and the period up to the intergovernmental conference in 1996. As I have said, the situation may change, but it means that, in the enlarged European Union of 16 members, 11 only—that includes Norway—will be full members of the Western European Union, while four members of the European Union, Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland, would not be members of any military alliance whatever.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent visit by Western European Union representatives to Finland? We were extremely warmly received and there was every indication that the Finns were radically reassessing their situation.
  Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a member of the Western European Union, which is why I speak about it with such feeling. I have tried to express the view that the feelings of the four countries are the most likely to change in the near future, but the reality is that, at present, it is not their stated intention to become full members of the Western European Union. They have indicated their wish to be observers, which is in line with what I have already said to the House. The claim of the Western European Union to be the security and defence wing of the European Union is substantially weakened if one third of the membership of the Union are observers to it only. If we are to progress with a common foreign and security policy and a common defence policy, which will, one hopes, lead to common defence, to use the Maastricht phraseology, it clearly cannot be based on a military or defence strategy in which one third of the membership of the European Union are fully participating, fully paid-up members of the defence organisation and European pillar of NATO: the Western European Union.
  May I remind the House that the accession of those four countries will bring a new set of problems? I think that it was the Foreign Secretary himself who said that, for the first time, the European Union will now have a common border with Russia. The Scandinavian countries have a close interest in the Baltic states. I am not suggesting for one moment that the United Kingdom does not have an interest in them too, but the interest of the Scandinavian countries is much greater than that of the United Kingdom. That applies especially to Sweden, which has invested a great deal of time, energy, money and diplomatic effort in supporting the Baltic states.
  I remind the House that President Yeltsin referred to the three Baltic states as the "near abroad". In a parody of President Yeltsin, the Swedish Government referred to the three Baltic states as the Swedish "near abroad" to indicate their own interest in preserving the independence of the Baltic states.
  My two examples show that the European Union will be faced with new and different problems. As a consequence, it will have to take a much closer interest than it has in the past in the political and economic development of Russia. I hope that we are prepared to be more proactive in assisting the Russians in the development of their economy than we have been hitherto. We must also take a closer interest in the foreign policy developments of Russia.
  Having been pessimistic and probably having presented a far too negative case, I shall end on a positive note. Clearly the four applicant countries have great experience in international affairs. They have all played their full part in the development of the United Nations and in carrying

  725
  out the United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts throughout the world. They have also assisted in the promotion of the welfare and interests of the third world. I hope that when they accede to the European Union and begin to play their full part in the development of the foreign policy of the Union, if not its security and defence policy, they will be able to push the EU towards a more imaginative approach to third world problems and to global environmental problems. If they are able to do that, their accession will more than outweigh the negative features that I have outlined and the pessimistic case that I presented about the four countries' participation in the security and defence organ of the European Union.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I suppose that the first question that we must ask is whether it is necessary for the four applicant countries to accede to the European Union if we are to give them some of the advantages that many in this country would wish to extend to them. Surely it is not necessary to invite them to join the Union if we are to enter into some form of military alliance with them. Equally, it is not necessary to invite them into the Union if we wish to extend to them the advantages of free trade and to gain the advantage for our manufacturers of free trade with them. It must surely be that we principally advocate their entry into the Union because we believe that it will have some beneficial effect upon the Union itself.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) is in the Chamber. He has a long and distinguised career in his criticism of the Union, or the Common Market as it used to be. When talking to me he always said, "Extend the Common Market; bring in more members. That will loosen it up." He used to use a different verb, but that was the effect of his remarks. He always argued that when the southern European countries came in the common agricultural policy would be loosened.
  My right hon. Friend reminded us of the imaginative attitude that many of the people of southern Europe have towards the question of public finance. He felt that it would be unlikely that the Germans would wish to finance, say, a tobacco-support mechanism or the growing of notional olives on every piece of concrete in southern Italy. That has not happened yet. Equally, the loosening up of the CAP has not yet happened.
  We are about to find that the cost of financing the CAP and the European Union has grown enormously, partly as a result of the entry of southern European countries and partly because of our great vision—all this vision—of convergence and industrial support. We would be opposed to it if we saw it emerging in the United Kingdom, but we manage to describe it with great enthusiasm when we see it elsewhere in Europe.
  Is it proven that the entry of the four applicant countries will loosen up the Community? I have tried to ascertain what people mean when they talk about deepening the Union. To some, deepening is a term of abuse. To others, it is a sign of the Union developing in ways of which they approve.
  It seems highly likely that the entry of the four countries will be to the Labour party's advantage in the sense that
  726
  their entry will lead to the shaping of the Union in a manner of which it tends to approve. Each of the four countries will be in favour of the social chapter. I note that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is nodding firmly. He has been one of my tutors in these matters over the years.
  The four countries will be strongly in favour of the social chapter and will be more than likely to disapprove of our opt out. They will say that our opt out gives us an unfair advantage in competing in Europe. They will use the Community's institutions to impose the social chapter on us by various indirect methods connected mainly with the Single European Act. They will further impose it by the use of the federalist mechanism of law-making and law-enforcement within the Community. To that extent, their entry will surely lead to the further deepening of the Community.
  The argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North about the southern European countries and the CAP can again be used. We are to see the entry into the Union of four more agricultural economies with slightly different agricultures. That will again distort and make more expensive the CAP. By any rational standard, one would expect the Germans to say, "We have had enough. We do not want to support any more of these distortions. If these distortions are to be later extended to the traditional bread basket of Europe—Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as it used to be—the cost will be enormous."
  The loosening up process has been anticipated on so many occasions but it has not come yet. When most people talk about deepening, it is a term of art for what happens to be their particular concern about the Community as matters stand. There is much talk about our vision of Europe.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) will forgive me for being offensive, but he offers the House a lot of stuff about our vision of Europe being accepted by the rest of Europe. If a gentleman in the south of Italy is completing his application for some form of industrial or agricultural support, I do not suppose that he has in mind much of what my right hon. Friend said about his vision of Europe as a place where honesty, democracy and gentlemanly behaviour will overcome all national characteristics.
  I dare say that the gentleman who is pulling down the ramp of a cattle wagon to unload a cow which is about to be walked across the border between the Republic of Ireland and the north in order to collect subsidies on each side of the border does not have much in mind talk about a vision of a democratic, honest and forward-thinking Europe. I doubt whether he will be completely overwhelmed and burst into tears of contrition as a result of the vision of Europe held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford.
  Sir Russell Johnston: One could say, so what?
  Mr. Budgen: I was just going to say what.
  Instead of telling Europe how it should proceed, we should recognise that there are many individuals, parties and states in Europe who genuinely believe in a federal structure. No doubt, if we were Belgians, we would have a very different view about how our country might be united. If we were Italians, we might well say that we did

  727
  not trust our domestic institutions and that we would be happier to be ruled by European statesmen. Those are perfectly reasonable points of view.
  My contention is that it is not much good making airy speeches about how our vision will conquer Europe. In the present circumstances, the best we can do is to decide what our view of Europe should be. We should try to assess domestic opinion and try to offer a little leadership in that regard.
  Instead of going on about a vision for Europe, we should recognise that the most important misfortune that we have suffered as a nation in recent history was the mismanagement of our economy through our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, the failure of the Conservative party to understand that that membership was only the necessary preliminary to a single currency and the need for us, in our party and in our country, to argue with those who are still unprepared to accept the lesson of that humiliation.
  It is no good saying that allowing the accession of these four countries is irrelevant to that point. When I said that to the Foreign Secretary, he replied that the accession of these countries has nothing to do with a single currency. However, my right hon. Friend should read some of the speeches which his fellow members of the Cabinet make from time to time.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an extremely important speech in Bonn on 29 June. When expressing his support for Sir Leon Brittan and for Mr. Lubbers, he said:
  "These men are all men with a vision of European Union. They support the deepening as well as the widening of the Union."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer then very helpfully explained his views further on television the following Sunday. According to The Daily Telegraph, the Chancellor said:
  "However with the prospect of a further enlargement of the European Union he indicated that a common currency would soon be inevitable.
  'The idea that they will all be trading in 20 freely floating currencies based on 20 monetary authorities I would find highly unlikely.'
  'It is possible that they would all trade in Deutschmarks.'"
  No one can accuse my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being overwhelmed by an interest in detail. It is possible that he did not draw the distinction between a common currency and a single currency. However, he has been the most vigorous advocate of a single currency.
  When he appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee recently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had not had time to read the book which his old friend Sir Leon Brittan had written about Europe. I recommend that book. It is a very important and interesting summary of the present views of many people in the Tory party. On page 54 of his book, Sir Leon writes about the membership of the club:
  "This is crucial, for the government leaders who signed the Treaty are fundamentally aware of two factors; first, that some of them may be ready and willing to form a single currency before others, and must not be stopped from doing so; and secondly that, in the long term, a single currency will work more effectively the more European nations join."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir Leon Brittan believe that the accession of these four countries, far from loosening the organisation in the European Union, will actually deepen it, make it more integrated and lead inexorably—they argue—towards a single currency.
  728
  I have spoken at some length and I am sure that my colleagues would like to contribute to the debate. Let us not in this House make vague, vacuous assertions about the way in which our European neighbours will change their view. They, like us, formed their view perhaps in childhood or in late adolescence, but owing to the deep experiences of their countries, families, towns and villages, they will not be influenced by foreign words, no matter how grand or eloquent.
  All we can do in this House is to try to see how such policies work for our country and offer some element of leadership and choice. At least we can now say that the Labour party is moving clearly and firmly towards the advocacy of a federal European state. It will soon be the duty and honour of the Tory party to offer choice to the country.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Before the contribution of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I was going to say that the one thing that has tended to unite those of us who are habitués of these European debates is our support for enlargement. The hon. Gentleman fractured, or at least splintered, that fragile unity among us. That is a shame because, like hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate, I strongly welcome the accession of Austria, Norway, Finland and Sweden to membership of the European Union.
  In the past, we have tended to differ, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to those differences, on whether deepening should accompany widening, whether widening means diluting, as some hope, and therefore whether widening means more or less integration within the European Union. I can say unambiguously that I entirely share the analysis of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He got it absolutely right. He was spot on. To those who see widening as an alternative to deepening, I say that, in the history of the European Community, enlargement has always led to greater integration.
  The economic and political forces that drive the process of European integration are invariably strengthened, not weakened, as more nations gain membership. The greater the number of members, the clearer and tighter—not the vaguer and looser—the institutional arrangements have to become to accommodate the decision-making among the increased number of member states. That, of course, means more complexity, more tough bargaining, more compromise and more give and take between that greater number of member states. It also means, inevitably, more majority voting within the European Union. We must face up to that. That has been the lesson of enlargement in the past and it will be the case as we move from a 12-member to a 16-member Union. It will certainly be true in spades with the coming challenge as the Union is enlarged through membership of east European countries.
  Given the complexities and the difficult currents within the Union through which we must navigate, it is all the more important to have a clear and agreed vision of where we want to end up. We also need a good route map to enable us to get there. It is lamentable and unfortunate, and a great loss for our country as well as for the entire European Union, that that vision and end goal, as well as the route map, are notably absent from the Government's

  729
  approach. On its current performance and in the light of its current divisions, the Tory party seems incapable of providing them.
  I shall discuss where the European Union is going and some of the problems tat it must face on the way. I shall be as blunt as some hon. Members who have already spoken, including the right hon. Members for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). On the subject of further enlargement, I believe that a continent like Europe, which is so strongly linked by its geography, its history and its culture, and whose political stability and security is so dependent on close work and co-operation, should not in principle exclude any applicant country which wishes to join its union. That is an important observation and an important principle to establish.
  We want to extend Europe's influence in the world and therefore we want the European Union to grow. We want to extend current European stability and security throughout the continent. Whether the impetus is to safeguard Europe from continental war, to expand trade and develop markets, to build up a third economic force to rival the might of the United States, Japan and the Pacific rim or to extend social benefits and environmental protection to all European citizens, the case for stronger co-operation and integration in an enlarged European Union is overwhelming.
  Membership of the Union must depend on each new country's compatibility—membership is neither a foregone conclusion, nor automatic. Given the different stages of economic, political and social development achieved in the Visegrad countries, their membership of the Union will not be gained speedily and smoothly. It will not happen overnight.
  The challenge from east Europe is clear to us. Those countries are striving to become successful, stable and socially united market economies. The help that they need to restructure, to gain reassurance as well as security and access to markets can be provided only by the west. In the years to come, therefore, the central task for the European Union will not simply be to forge even closer integration among its existing members. That was the Maastricht agenda. It was an appropriate and relevant agenda, but we have moved on from it as events and changes throughout Europe have overtaken the thinking that underpinned it. We must reach out much further and concentrate increasingly on adapting the workings and institutions of the European Union to meet the needs of a larger and more diverse membership of nations.
  That will involve a gradual process of association leading to stronger links, perhaps with the various pillars of the Union. The right hon. Member for Guildford made an apposite observation about that. I see no reason why the Visegrad four should not increasingly become associated with, or linked to, some of the political mechanisms and pillars of the Maastricht Union without necessarily becoming fully drawn into the economics of the Union, and far less becoming full members of it. The right hon. Member's observation about that was extremely important and valid. We want such membership to be gained finally, but it must be organised. The process of change and adaptation will be slow. It must come at a time when it can be afforded—when the costs can be borne by the member countries and, not least, by the European Union.
  730
  Whatever path the enlargement follows and whatever applicant countries are involved, some daunting issues, apart from cost, must be faced. I do not discount the need to overhaul radically the common agricultural policy or the complexities posed by the creation of economic and monetary union.
  However, without any question, as the Union grows, the biggest issue that will confront us will be the necessary rethink of the ways in which it makes its law, enforces its decisions and regulates its markets. Those issues represent the most daunting challenge to those of us who are committed to the development of the European Union.
  We know what is wrong. A lurid picture of those problems was painted by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North and I do not mind saying that I accept a number of his criticisms, but I do so from a different standpoint. I acknowledge those problems through a desire to overcome them rather than in the hope that they should continue and possibly weaken the European Union.
  We know about the strains and shortcomings in Europe's methods of work, the lack of transparency in its decision making, the poverty of national debate and scrutiny of its laws and decisions and the limited accountability of its officials. That democratic and administrative malaise within the Union is seriously undermining it. It is impeding its development, undermining its legitimacy and its public appeal. It is important to address those problems, because they are the cause of a growing public revolt. I do not exaggerate that, and I do not support the course that others would like us to follow in our denunciation, but we have witnessed the emergence of a public revolt against what is perceived to be a remote, out-of-touch and uncontrollable bureaucracy in the European Union. That must be dealt with if, as the Labour party and those of us who are strongly committed to Europe and approach the matter not as Euro-sceptics but as convinced Europeans want, the European Union is to be strengthened, its sense of purpose restored, and Britain's place in it reaffirmed.
  Without stronger democratic development, hand in hand with greater economic integration and enlargement of the Union, public acceptance of both that integration and enlargement will be fragile and may even be placed in jeopardy. That is the key lesson to be learnt from the experience of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty and the negotiation of the entry of the four new member states whose accession we are debating tonight.
  Important questions must be asked in closing the democratic deficit that has become such an issue in relation to the Union—how European legislation is initiated in the Commission; how the Commission is formed, and who forms and approves it; which decisions are taken and on what basis in the Council of Ministers; what involvement the European Parliament has; what scrutiny national Parliaments undertake; whether an entirely new hierarchy of decision making should be instituted, with heavier procedures attached to the European Union's weightier acts; and, above all, how we shall open all that to greater democratic scrutiny and accountability within our own nations and among our publics at home. Those and other issues need to be seriously addressed and debated as further enlargement is pursued. I do not for a moment describe that as a Euro-sceptic agenda. On the contrary, it is a positive, thinking, pro-European agenda, on which

  731
  those of us who are convinced Europeans should not for one moment cede to those who are hostile to the whole project.
  It has been a recent orthodoxy, at least in the Foreign Office, to regard the intergovernmental conference in 1996 as an essentially limited and unambitious exercise—more a 3,000 mile service than a radical overhaul. I understand the nervousness of those who went through the whole Maastricht experience, whether they were officials, Ministers or those who participated in so many debates. I understand the reluctance of all those concerned to embark on anything that remotely resembles that Maastricht process. None the less, that attitude is wrong.
  Even if the outcome is smaller than anticipated, our sights should be lifted and our horizons should be wider than that suggested by a mere 3,000 mile service. Our aims should be to put a lot into 1996, play a constructive part in the IGC, help shape the decisions and, most importantly, loudly proclaim and stand up for the IGC's results rather than gloss over its conclusions or run away from public debate about them. We should not refuse to stand up and give an account of what has been agreed at that conference for fear that public debate may re-open internal party divisions. That has bedevilled our approach to date and it has been very weakening as a result. We must give a lead. That may be hoping for more than the Government can give, hobbled as they are by the terrible internal tensions and divisions within their party, but that positive, creative approach to the IGC is extremely badly needed.
  If Britain is to be remotely successful at the IGC, the Government, in their contributions to the debate, whether in Britain or among our European partners on the continent, must stop posing the choice for Europe's future—whether it is enlarged or not—as between a minimalist, free-trade area with weak, shackled institutions and loose-knit intergovernmental working versus a centralised, federalist organisation, robbing its member states of their sovereignty and riding roughshod over their traditions and national Parliaments. Both options are equally unrealistic, irrelevant and undesirable. It is hardly surprising that, given that choice between almost nothing and rampant federalism-centralism, many of our constituents have become a little sceptical. It is a false, wrong-headed and thoroughly misleading choice to put to the British people.
  A third option gives a different vision of a larger, more integrated Europe that is wider and deeper in its economic, political and defence integration, but whose institutions and working practices are radically reformed to make it more democratic, more accountable, more responsive, less wasteful and more efficient, with proper devolution of power outwards and downwards from the centre. That is the Europe that we need for the future. We must work for that and, above all, we must argue for it. If the present Government will not do so, the rest of us must.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, especially following the characteristically thoughtful and profound contribution about Europe's future direction from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I hope that I shall not embarrass him or his colleagues if I say that I agreed with a substantial amount of what he said.
  I have never considered it a weakness if hon. Members substantially agree across the Floor of the House on
  732
  European matters. On major votes of principle on European matters and at all the developmental stages since we joined the European Community in 1973, the House has a strong tradition of big, built-in, natural majorities for the next significant stage of development. That may not have applied to specific legislation, in respect of which the whipping system and the Government majority system in whatever form were in play and where the majority was commensurate with the party reflection. But on the big issues of future European development, a great meeting of minds in the House has impinged on public opinion outside.
  The European Movement, an all-party European movement of which the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) is an active member, holds its ordinary meetings in various places throughout the country. The reaction of the audiences, of all political affiliations and none—some people adhere to no party whatever—are encouraging and enthusiastic. Basically, subject to details and differences of opinion on individual items, people are keen on these developments.
  It always encourages but depresses us when audiences ask, "Why haven't the politicians told us that before?" People want to know why they have had such a distorted account of the development of the European Community and Union from the press—and particularly from a number of malevolent broadsheet newspapers owned by non-British people who are pursuing a campaign of hatred towards the European Union. I use that strong word deliberately. The campaign is even more stark in the tabloids and it leads to a great deal of scepticism among the public because it creates a vacuum.
  I am a keen Conservative and enthusiastic supporter of nearly all the Government's policies but am nevertheless of the view that, tragically, the problem was added to in our European election campaign. As has already been said, this is our first debate on the European accession treaty since the European elections. The Conservative stance in those elections was unnecessarily negative, which was a great shame; ultimately, it sought merely to cover our internal divisions in the parliamentary party. We were so busy campaigning and trying to keep the party together that we ended up simply appeasing some of the more active—and, indeed, geriatric—members of the local associations. One Sunday newspaper found, in a survey that the average age of the most active members in our local Conservative associations was about 62, which is fairly disturbing in its own right.
  I do not believe that that scepticism is other than simply the result of a vacuum—unfortunately, as I have said, a distorted account of these developments is given both in the House and in the British press. I do not believe that we are talking about the genuinely sceptical people who want to see a recrudescence of nationalism or a strong nation-statism of one sort or another, whatever the future structures. If we take the youngest generation, it is axiomatic that they are extremely keen and natural Europeans, and want politicians to take the lead.
  In the German European elections, even though they were somewhat jolted by the lower-than-ever turnout—and others will remind me of the percentage if it is relevant to the debate—there was literally no difference of any sort in the European policy stance of the major parties. In Britain, that would be regarded as eccentric and bizarre. Basically, if the development of the European Union is a good thing

  733
  and is in the interests of this country and other member states, there does not have to be a huge difference of opinion.
  If a Government succumb to the temptation—and I say this with great sadness—to create official state policy on the basis of appeasing a small number of my reactionary old-fashioned colleagues here who want to put the clock back not 20 or 50 years but to 1850—or probably earlier than that, and probably to before the Reform Act of 1832—rather than constructing a positive and enthusiastic policy in the literal, intrinsic and good interests of this country, they will inevitably get into increasing difficulties. I deeply regret that.
  The reality is that, if all Governments and parties go too far down the un-European path, that brings rather sad conclusions to those who seek to perpetrate those policies. We have seen that in the past, and I hope that it will not be repeated in the future because the public are crying out for strong leadership on these matters. That is why I think that there will be a strong welcome among the British people for the accession of these four members if the subsequent referendums in three of them also prove to be positive—despite the fact that there is inevitably a question mark over Norway.
  If Norway votes no, membership is not compulsory; it can go away. It does not have to join, but I would be sad if that happened. All the way through the strands of debate and argument in those countries, from the official Government statements to the debates in their own Parliaments, we have seen the enthusiasm for accepting the acquis communautaire. There is no question but that the people in those countries, and particularly their Governments and governing parties, feel that to be so.
  I will not prolong the debate unnecessarily by quoting in detail. It just so happens, however, that I have the official negotiating statements made by those Governments recommending membership to their people. I shall quote the statement from a country which had a spectacular referendum result. The British press, by the way, said that the result would be either a no or a tiny yes margin—and look what happened. I did not see much exegesis and interpretation in the British press afterwards: there was no questioning of the sensible Austrian population about why they were so wise as to make this decision. I shall quote from the official Austrian Government's statement from the publication "On the Threshold to a New Europe":
  "the European Union enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty stands for much more than the Single Market. The process of European integration was designed by the political vision of a Europe undivided and prosperous. So far, this work of peaceful cooperation has yielded in European history four decades of what we hope will remain a lasting peace. European integration"—
  that is what they want officially and that is what they voted for—
  "has also been an answer to hatred, nationalism and genocide—phenomena that we believed to be a thing of the past."
  There is the answer. There is no question but that some of the young fogies in the Conservative party and elsewhere—there are one or two elsewhere, and I imagine that there are also old fogies in the Labour party—would like to put the clock back as well. There is no question but that, a few years ago, enlargement would have been the original idea for stopping the integration process. But they all accept the acquis communautaire.
  734
  I shall quote from the equivalent official statement from Corfu of the Finnish Government:
  "The European Union is a key factor in strengthening the security of our continent. Security grows out of social responsibility, interaction, respect for human life and economic prosperity. In such a Europe there are no economic or social lines of division and all states are able to participate equally in the integration process. Enlargement of the Union promotes the enhancement of stability throughout the continent.
  Finland supports the Union's economic and political objectives."
  To move on briefly and quickly, I shall quote from the Swedish press release which was issued in March when the negotiations were concluded:
  "Swedish membership also means enlargement in a number of other crucial areas of cooperation: environmental issues, international efforts to combat crime, narcotics questions and refugee matters. All these areas are examples of problems which can only be solved by means of broad European and international cooperation.
  Membership is the only option which will enable Sweden to participate in this cooperation."
  Finally, Norway: once again, the British newspapers have attempted to say that hesitations will turn out to be no votes. I am not sure about that; we will have to wait to see how one interacts with and impinges on the other. I quote from the official statement issued by the Norwegian Government at the same time as the Swedish one:
  "Our national interests are best served if Norway participates fully in the further development of Europe, on an equal footing with our Nordic neighbours and European allies.
  All the countries of Europe have a great need for close cooperation on employment, economic stability, welfare, social security and environmental issues. Binding cooperation in these areas is especially important for a country with such an open economy as Norway."
  Can we also get away from the phantasmagoric mythology which has been repeated time and time again by certain foolish people in this country? It is suggested that, for some reason, there is a huge change of opinion among the other existing members—or, indeed, among the four new members, if the other three countries follow Austria's lead in joining the Union soon, which I expect them to do—and that there must be major hesitations and fundamental second thoughts about the development of the Union and a resiling from the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act. There is no evidence at all that that is so—other than the harsh reality of the recession and the fact that that and mass unemployment produce crude political movements arising in various member states which may have a nationalistic impetus which is stronger than the more traditional and conventional parties in different countries, and other than the vacuum created by the gaps in the traditional enthusiasm for European matters which has always been a feature of the Conservative party and the Conservative Government. That is the solemn and dangerous thing which we in our party and in the whole of this Parliament must accept.
  Again, that is illustrated by the idea that suddenly in the campaign it was suggested that there would be different speeds for different member states, and the total misrepresentation of what the Commission is about and what it has been doing. I do not disagree with the assertion by the hon. Member for Hartlepool that we need another searching look at all these matters, particularly because of enlargement. As the Union gets larger, we must have a more tightly drawn up, integrated structure. This is not an irony; it is a reality if we are to make progress to the next stage—the greater use of qualified majority voting. To my mind, that is the quintessence of a democratic mechanism,

  735
  but it is regarded by some of our colleagues with scorn, derision, contempt and hatred. How can they describe that as being other than totally democratic and for the most part in the deep interests of this country rather than detrimental to it in future?
  We see the multi-speed idea suddenly arising. I hope that it will disappear as quickly as it has arisen because of its intrinsic superficiality. Some people use a different phrase—"variable geometry". I shall quote what Mr. Andriessen said several years ago about the matter of variable geometry and what I believe it means to those who are involved, whatever their domestic political party adherence. By the way, that is often much less relevant in the European Councils and discussions than we think here. There is no obsession with someone being a Conservative, a Christian Democrat, a socialist or of the far left. There is a working together with people from all sorts of different political disciplines.
  I was struck by what Mr. Andriessen said in April 1991:
  "Creative thinking is now required to define arrangements whereby the Community could offer the benefits of membership, and the accompanying gains for stability, without weakening its drive towards further integration and without subjecting the fragile structures of new market economies to excessive pressure. This could be achieved through affiliate membership, a new concept not provided for by the Community treaties or by the Europe Agreements, and at present not on the agenda of the inter-governmental conference. Affiliate membership would provide membership rights and obligations in some areas, while excluding others, at least for a transitional period."
  No one is suggesting that notion now, because there is no suggestion of anyone applying for membership on that basis. To be sure, some non-member countries still have association agreements, as they have had for a long, time. Nevertheless, the quotation provides an insight into the thinking of those who assumed that there might be an alternative way of applying for membership, with endless opt-outs and hesitations, and with strident demands for instant second thoughts, should countries wish to press ahead with certain developments in the Union. I hope that that puts the record straight.
  The same idea lies behind the discussions that can be heard going on in the newly elected Strasbourg Parliament. No one is having second thoughts on these matters—none that I can detect—although there are inevitable differences about details of policy. That is only natural; we would not expect there to be automatic consensus on all areas of policy. It would be very silly to suppose that there could be.
  There are still internal party divisions in the House, although for the moment they may be papered over in the Labour party by a soi-disant unity. It will be intriguing to see how long that lasts. I would expect it to last at least until the next general election. There are some who believe that, if there were ever a Labour Government—which I hope there will not be—the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) would act as the leading old fogey in his party in a campaign against greater European integration.
  If we go along with such ideas, this country will be in mortal danger of losing its way once again. The national sovereignty of member states is not under attack in any of these plans—if it were, I would not be in favour of them. I have never detected a single instance of loss of sovereignty; those who think that it has been lost are suffering from fantasies of old parliamentary doctrine—ideas that are no longer part of the real world. Sovereign countries can work together in more and more closely
  736
  integrated structures and with qualified majority voting. That serves only to enhance their intrinsic national sovereignty.
  The more axiomatically desirable something is, the less we tend to discuss it. That was certainly true of NATO, which in the cold-war period was axiomatically considered a good idea. Of course there was an external threat, so the parallel is not exact, but because it was regarded as good it was felt that there was no real need to discuss it at length. That is how other member states often regard membership of the EU. They believe that it is axiomatically good for their national strengths and their future prosperity.
  Why cannot we come up to date? Why cannot the House of Commons be more mature about these matters and devise a cross-party consensus without the fear of being dull? I am sure that the Minister would agree that we need a properly constructed policy and that we should not worry unduly about a small minority in our party, which should not be allowed to dictate terms and to demand that we agree to more of the items on its agenda: "You gave way to our hesitations over Maastricht. Sorry, but we forgot to mention another 11 items on our agenda."
  It would be a most unwelcome development if the Conservative Government acceded to such demands. The Government will gain support if they succeed in recreating our traditional enthusiasm for membership of a growing and enlarged European Union.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who made a characteristically positive speech about the European Union. He criticised his own party's campaign in the European election. Whatever else may be said about that campaign, it was a resounding failure, in that it produced the Conservatives' worst result this century.
  I want to refer later to what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said about widening and deepening, but he claimed that I was one of his tutors on the subject of the EU. If so, he must have been an extremely inattentive student.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on his thoughtful speech about the European Union and its direction. I also intend to take up several of his points.
  Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, I welcome the treaty of accession, signed in June of this year in Corfu and admitting Norway, Austria, Finland and Sweden. It is good news that the Austrian referendum gave a resounding yes to entry. I hope that that will prove a good augury for the referendums to be held later this year in Norway, Finland and Sweden.
  In some ways, the four former EFTA countries are natural members of the EU. For many years, the Austrian economy has been closely tied to the German. The three Scandinavian countries are prosperous welfare democracies, which will strengthen the EU and which should have little difficulty adapting to membership. They will certainly have little difficulty supporting the social chapter. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West rightly pointed out that the Government are gaining no allies in that respect. On the contrary, Labour will gain allies when those countries join, as I hope they will.
  From a purely economic perspective, the surprising thing is how long it took after Britain had joined the EC for

  737
  these four EFTA countries to follow suit. The explanation is political. Finland had a special relationship with the former Soviet Union, Austria and Sweden were neutral, and Norway was the Scandinavian country furthest from Brussels and the European centres of power.
  It is nevertheless good news that the four are likely to join the EU. As the Foreign Secretary said, Second Reading provides us with a good opportunity to debate the strategic direction of the European Union. Should it, for instance, take in more members? If so, which ones? Should widening take priority over deepening, or do both processes go hand in hand? What does the accession of these countries say about popular support for the Union? What can be done to further that support? Those are all important questions.
  I believe that the EU's greatest task is to help to bring lasting stability, prosperity and democracy to the former Soviet bloc countries. That applies especially to the Visegrad four, but it does not exclude other countries such as Slovenia and the Baltic states. This is partly an argument about history and culture. I think it was Lady Thatcher who said that Warsaw, Budapest and Prague are European cities too. Partly, too, it is an argument about our self-interest. We do not want these countries failing on our borders. If they do fail, huge numbers of migrants will come to our countries—hence the self-interest.
  There is also the sometimes forgotten fact that the establishment and underwriting of democracy has always been the European Union's underlying purpose. It was never just a free trade area. Had it been, Spain and Portugal could have joined much earlier. The European Union is above all a grouping of democratic countries, and it is primarily to help to provide a lasting basis for democracy that it is so crucial that the EU lay down a positive, clear timetable for the entry of the former communist countries.
  As some hon. Members have said, if the task of enlargement to the east is accepted by existing members, there will be some implications. There is the issue of CAP reform. Euro-sceptics sometimes hopefully suggest that widening the EC somehow rules out deepening. That is not the case.
  A European Union of 20 or even 25 members will inevitably have to change its operating rules if it is to work effectively. It will have to look at the number of Commissioners and how they are appointed, and at strengthening the presidency to facilitate business. There is already a problem about that. It will have to look at the transparency of the Community institutions, and will have to reappraise the weighting between big and small countries.
  My argument with the Government over the Ioannina compromise was not so much the issue as the fact that they chose to raise it at this inappropriate time. Above all, the EU must look at the greater use of majority voting. Anyone who does not see that as a serious issue is not facing the reality of the Union, because a Community of 16, let alone 20 or 25, cannot be run without a great deal more majority voting.
  Those will all be vital questions for 1996, but even more important is the need to involve the peoples of Europe in the European Union. I hope that the EFTA countries will show in their referendums that they want to join the Union. The Maastricht referendum in France was narrowly won
  738
  but the result was uncertain, and two referendums were necessary in Denmark before the Maastricht treaty was supported.
  Mr. Dykes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a big difference between a compulsory referendum under constitutional arrangements and one that is an optional extra designed by a political leader which goes wrong for internal reasons?
  Mr. Radice: I am coming to that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping me on the right track.
  In an excellent recent speech on the Union which I advise hon. Members to read, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) rightly said that it cannot be a grand design handed down from on high from Government to the governed, and that Europe must be argued for.[Interruption.] We do not always argue for it. We argued for it on entry, but we do not go on arguing for it. We must continue to argue for it, and when we do things will change.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield rightly argues not just for an increase in the powers of the European Parliament but for the involvement of national Parliaments in the process. We have failed to do that throughout the Union.
  Mr. Spearing: I commented to myself rather than to the House that the argument has been going on for 15 years. Does that not show either that a mistake was made or that there are continuing doubts that have some validity?
  Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend has never accepted the result of the first referendum in 1975, so in a sense we are arguing on different levels. I am saying that we must make a case for what is done, that we must argue for the Maastricht treaty.
  I was involved in both the French and Danish referendums. The problem was that they were ad hoc referendums, and were related mainly to national events. President Mitterrand decided to have one because he thought that it would strengthen his political position. They were held at different times, and had a knock-on effect. They were fought primarily on national lines and often accentuated party differences.
  There is a case for referendums, but they should be Europewide, and should take place simultaneously, on the same day across Europe, rather in the manner of European elections. That might avoid some of the purely domestic political issues that enter the debate.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnson) does not support referendums, but I think that we should look at the idea. Purely Europewide referendums could highlight European aspects of policy and would force politicians to argue for change and involve the people in that change. The problem is that politicians have sometimes not argued the case. The Government certainly did not argue the case for Maastricht, just for its opt-outs. That was hardly an argument for Maastricht, and the people were not involved.
  Britain must be involved in all these debates. It cannot be an effective member of the European Union, half in and half out, an occasional country member, an offshore island semi-detached from the continent. We must play a leading part in all the debates ahead. In that context, the

  739
  triumphalist tone that the Foreign Secretary occasionally allowed to creep into his speech was totally inappropriate to the facts.
  Under this Government, Britain is not taken seriously, as it ought to be, in European debates, and the reason is simple. Our partners are uncertain of our intentions and motives, and do not know whether the Government will be blown off course by a band of very determined rather skilful and in some respects quite able Euro-sceptics. The Government must make up their mind. It is about time that they said firmly to their rebels that we can achieve more together in Europe than we can alone, and that Britain will at last begin to play a positive part in the European Union and in the debate about its direction.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I join in the warm welcome expressed by nearly all contributors to the debate for the proposal that the four new candidates should accede to the European Union. It is significant that the Governments of those countries have decided to apply, and I hope that their peoples will endorse that decision.
  Those applications have been made despite the fact that the past two or three years have been difficult for the Union. We all know the reasons, and they are related not only to the economic recession but to the challenges of Bosnia and other foreign policy difficulties. Despite that, those countries clearly understand the benefits and advantages to their nations of membership of the European Union.
  I hope that the decision by those four Governments will send a message to those in this country, some of whom are in the House, who are misguided and muddle-headed about the concept of the European Union and about the advantages and benefits that membership offers this country.
  There are two types of misapprehension—I use as kind a word as I can. A small minority cling to the idea that Britain should leave the European Union. There are not many people in that minority, but there are a few, and there are possibly one or two of them in the House. I hope that they will pause for thought and consider that, after such a long time, these four balanced, normal countries which we respect have decided that membership of the Union is in their national interests.
  A rather larger minority is much more important, because it is much more difficult and has a damaging political impact. That minority constantly suggests—not often spelt out in concrete terms, but implied—that the answer is a free trade area. Hon. Members and others who hold that view must surely pause to think that those four nations who for years adhered to the European Free Trade Area and then to the European Economic Area have decided that that is not enough, that it is not the way to promote and develop their national interests.
  They have decided that the benefits and advantages, together with the challenges and difficulties of European Union membership, will deliver the goods for Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden. As the majority of hon. Members well understand, what delivers the goods for the people of those nations is what will deliver the goods for the people in this country. That must be the message of the application for accession from those four countries.
  Another point that I hope will be taken to heart is that each of those countries has a very strong and distinct
  740
  national identity; a sense of its own nationhood. It is inconceivable that they would be misguided enough to sign up for some smudgy blur of a centralised united states of Europe. That is not their concept; it is certainly not my concept or that of the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. That, too, is a message that I hope the doubters and the sceptics take home. I hope that they will then finally drop their neuroses, some of which have been expressed in speeches tonight.
  I deeply respect the views of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on many matters. Indeed, I strongly share his views on NATO. However, I do not share his views on Europe.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) trotted out the bogeymen. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have discovered that, lurking on the continent of Europe, there are people who are actually in favour of a centralised and united states of Europe. They seem to be terrorised by, and terrified of, that amazing discovery. They should have a little more confidence. I have confidence that we will achieve a union of the European Community that does not surrender to Mr. Bitterlich, who was cited by the right hon. Gentleman as evidence.
  The one point on which I differ from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who otherwise made a very helpful speech, is his suggestion that there is a third option. I believe there may be 30 or 40 options. That is the excitement and challenge of developing and building the European Union. That challenge faces us all. I wish that the carping and the negativism would now stop, so that, in the months and years ahead, we can all—whatever party we belong to, or if we belong to none—try to work out the shape of the European Union and the British approach to the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
  I am usually regarded as an optimist, but it would be optimism of a high order to believe that we could develop a national cross-party consensus towards the IGC. However, there is a broad agreement on the sort of relationship with our European partners that we want to develop. I also believe that the instinct felt by me and many others in this House is shared by many on the continent.
  That is the challenge; that is the excitement. I hope that we can hold our debates without negativism and carping, and that we can join our 11 existing and four new partners in constructing a European Union that can get over the difficulties and meet the challenges from the rest of the word that we must surely face.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) about facing the challenges in the world. However, I am not sure that the encomiums of the treaty and the assumptions behind competing economic blocs meet that case. If there is to be a new world order and community in which tensions and economic competition do not develop into armed conflict, as they have in the past, we must do something better than the treaty before us.
  Despite the depleted numbers in the Chamber at this stage of the debate, I sense that a new tone has been struck. There is an unusual axis between Hartlepool and Shropshire. Indeed, branches of that axis may even extend as far as Harrow. I join those who have extolled some of the thoughts behind the speech of my hon. Friend the

  741
  Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I do not think that he and I will agree, but I hope that the House agrees that some of my thoughts on enlargement are at least worthy of consideration.
  The half-agreement that, uncharacteristically, appears to have broken out across the House between what are sometimes called in the press the well-known suspects at either extreme of the argument is due to the fact that those hon. Members have the ability objectively to analyse the observable facts. Even if they disagree on the direction from which we have come or should go, at least they can analyse the facts objectively.
  I want to deal largely with the Nordic states. Austria, for obvious cultural, linguistic and historical reasons, is rather separate. I have not listened to every speech tonight, but I do not think that anyone has mentioned the existence of the Nordic Union. It is an existing, genuine, international organisation that has not been paid the attention that it is due. How many countries would give up the idea of a national airline? Scandinavian Air Services is an example of that.
  Iceland is a member of the Nordic Union, but is not joining the EU. There has been the north Atlantic extension of Denmark into the Faroes. The Scandinavian countries look to the Baltic countries, with which their historic links are great. They have long-standing trade and cultural agreements. If they join the Union, there will be a greater and more rigid frontier between our friends in Scandinavia and our friends in the Baltic. That would not necessarily be wise.
  Again, objective observation shows that all those countries have had a specific and important history which will not sit well with the way in which the treaties are currently operated. Sweden is a former imperial power whose upper House of Parliament of landowners voted itself out of existence in the early 19th century. It did not even remain an advisory body. Norway became a new nation only this century, having been part of a greater union—"union" having been a dirty word in Norway. Should it virtually give up being essentially its own state in the same century in which it achieved independence?
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Norway might have become an independent state only at the beginning of this century, but it was always a proud and independent nation. There is a difference.
  Mr. Spearing: Indeed some of our hon. Friends may make the same comment about our northern member of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend will probably have the facts at his fingertips later. The political fact that I emphasise was probably correct.
  Denmark—a remarkable nation—has commonality with the others but is distinct. There is the old joke about the Schleswig-Holstein question, but it is no joke in Denmark—a country about the size of a Land in Germany that, through collective effort, produced an enormous social and agricultural revolution 100 years ago, largely through co-operative enterprise, not competition, that transformed that country's landscape.
  When I spoke to Danish officials on a visit by Select Committee members not long ago, they had to admit that, in acceding to the European single agricultural policy and its development, they are risking the development of
  742
  Denmark's own agricultural industry, created over the centuries. Finland has every reason to be suspicious, because it has knowledge of large economic and political blocs on its frontier.
  I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe, that each of those countries has a distinctive reason for the best sort of nationalism. The problem for some of us on this side of the House is that some of those with whom we occasionally have constitutional quarrels are not as keen on the best sort of nationalism. Unfortunately, no word in the English language expresses what is legitimate in being proud of one's community, in the sense that one is proud of one's own town. Nationalism has a nasty ring about it, for obvious reasons. There is a word gap that colours our own thinking.
  Each of those countries, particularly because of their rigorous national environment, has developed over the past thousand years its own form of community life. Forest, lake, water and sea have meant that those countries and their communities of relatively small towns, villages and scattered settlements have produced public enterprise, public ownership, forms of public support and taxation that have grown through the centuries and are now extremely strong. There is a democratic collectivism, market management and support of public markets to an extent, perhaps, that is not found elsewhere in mainland Europe.
  The impact on those qualities not only of the single market but of bankers at present is of concern in all those countries. Bankers in this country have a status rather greater than they deserve. I understand from Scandinavian friends that bankers in most Scandinavian countries do not have a high reputation at present.
  In toto, the grain of political and social life of the Nordic applicants is, in fundamentals, contrary to a great deal of the fundamentals found within the treaties. There is much talk these days about "our vision for Europe." Anyone who wants to get off the hook talks about "our vision for Europe", "my vision for Europe" or "my party's vision for Europe". There is no question of vision—it is there in the treaties. One cannot get away from them, and they are decided in black and white.
  The comment was made that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and others of us on this side of the House are backward. Fifty years ago, we in London knew what was going on, with the flying bombs, V Is and V2s. Members of my generation were determined that, as a result of that war, we would see something different. That is why many of us are pro-United Nations, pro-international and pro-Commonwealth. Until the altercation of the past 20 years, we would have been called pro-European.
  The trouble is that these days, European does not mean the totality of Europe or co-operating nations. It means pro-treaty, which is very different. I put it to people in this country that to achieve the sort of Europe that my generation wanted after the war, we have—to use a British Rail phrase—the wrong sort of treaty. That is growing clearer even to some people who were the most vociferous supporters of Britain entering the Common Market in 1972. I fear that it will become clearer and clearer to the citizens of the applicant states as time goes by.
  That is not clear to the Government. Today, the Foreign Secretary claimed that centralism had been checked. I agree with hon. Members in all parts of the House who say that that is not correct. Having signed a treaty that accelerates centralism, the Government claim that it has

  743
  been checked. They say that the federalists are on the retreat. There is a lack of knowledge in the House as to the difference between a federal constitution and a confederal constitution—the worst civil war in the English-speaking world was over the distinction between the two, and a unitary constitution.
  The treaties are neither confederal nor federal, but are unitary, because of the unitary nature of the European Parliament, Council, Court and Commission. Above all, there is no separation of powers. Arguments about subsidiarity, on which I shall not enlarge now, show that all too well. The mud, fluff, seminars and conferences about subsidiarity show that there is no proper division of powers, which is the hallmark of a genuine confederation or federation.
  I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool. I am glad to know that he is worried about the quality of scrutiny—and scrutiny does not mean control but only ability to see. That is not awfully easy, either. The Select Committee on European Legislation is in constant correspondence with Ministers about the inability even of that Committee to see certain documents—and the House does things rather better than many Parliaments in the Community.
  The Swedes have a strong and democratic procedure called the remiss, which is like an extended Green Paper. Before any law or change at almost any level in any organisation can be enacted, having been suggested by a committee or party leader, it must go all the way down to the lowest democratic level, and then comes back again. Only at that stage is the equivalent of a Bill printed.
  The Swedes will have a bad shock when it comes to the EEC. I have continual fears for the quality of democracy in such countries, which so many of us admire. When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who is not in his place now, he did not have an answer. I asked whether accession to the treaties would tend at least to diminish the quality of democracy in the applicant countries—and certainly their satisfaction with and confidence in their own Parliaments.
  We all know how much the Nordic states have contributed to world understanding. We can all think of names from recent history—Bernadotte, Trigve Lie, Dag Hammarskjold, Olav Palme and now Mrs. Brundtland. One thinks also of Brandt: although that distinguished gentleman was from Germany, he had Scandinavian connections. The commission to which he gave his name and which is continued in some respects by Mrs. Brundtland is indicative of that. We know of the part that those nations have played in humanitarian enterprises throughout the world—in the United Nations. A common foreign and security policy? Are they signing up to that.
  "Oh," say some of my hon. Friends and other people, "we could do so much more together." That is the sort of trite phrase that we hear so often. Of course we can, if we are united and if we believe in the cement of free co-operation, and not in coercion through constant negotiation, which is the hallmark of the European Community.
  Unfortunately, we have some examples before us. We all know that the tragedy of Croatia was partly due to a hurried, and perhaps ill-considered, recognition by the European Union—it was nearly a union by that time—
  744
  brought about by political forces that we understand. How many organisations do we know of that cannot move because of internal politics?
  The middle east is another great problem that has exercised the House for years. Did the European Union greatly accelerate the middle east problem to its solution? No. Norway greatly accelerated that process. Would it have been in a position to do so if it had been a member of the European Community from 1972? The thesis cannot be proved, but in all probability it would not.
  The common currency is liable to undermine the ability of those fine communities in Scandinavia to operate their form of constitution and democracy, and may well undermine their way of life in the fields, forests, fjords and veldts. The enlightened analysis that is beginning to appear in this House ought to be available to the people of those fine nations before they decide in their referendums.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Roger Knapman: As Front-Bench spokesmen are inclined to say, I think that we have had a good debate. We heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saying that he is winning his arguments in Europe—I am not sure whether he also said, "again". We also heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) saying that we are all speaking as sceptics.
  That made me very happy, until I read some parts of the treaty. Even in the preamble we find that the signatories are
  "DETERMINED in the spirit of those Treaties to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe on the foundations already laid".
  So, although I am grateful to learn that my right hon. Friends are in good heart, I wish that some of that could be conveyed to the treaty's draftsmen.
  I am sorry that the treaty is not a fraction more contentious. Then some of us could have the uplifting, not to say novel, experience of wandering through the same Lobby as many of our colleagues when voting on European business.
  The Bill is merely one page and seems reasonably uncontentious, but, for those who care to read it, it is based on a 389-page treaty, in which there is quite a lot of meat.
  Many people say that, at the time, the Single European Act was thought merely to be an Act to enable the completion of the single market. The real relevance of qualified majority voting was perhaps realised only at a later stage. In other words, there was a sting in the tail, and I wonder whether this single page Bill has a sting in its tail, such as qualified majority voting.
  I tend to view all such matters according to a speech that Disraeli once made when he advised all Conservative Governments to maintain the constitution, to uplift and uphold the conditions of the people and adequately to defend the country. I shall skip the part about adequately defending the country, on the basis that Mr. Deputy Speaker might rule me out of order and it might tempt the Whip on duty to reach for his pencil. As regards the advice to uphold the conditions of the people, the billions of pounds paid to cohesion funds, to build roads across Spanish deserts or Italian ravines, might better be spent on the national health service, education or even on reducing the public sector borrowing requirement.
  On the question of maintaining the constitution, may I offer one example—article 44, which, in the main, is gobbledegook. It begins:

  745
  "The share of Community fishing opportunities for stocks which are regulated by a catch limit, to be allocated to Norway, shall be fixed as follows, by species and by zone".
  Many pages of zones and references follow and there are 20 explanatory notes at the bottom of the page. Having thought about the article at the weekend—not fully understanding how one can have a percentage of 88,543(13)(19), but never mind that—Norway seems to have got a very favourable deal. I am not sure, as a result, what right the British fishing industry—assuming that we still have one—will have to fish in Norwegian waters.
  Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether, if British fishing companies purchase Norwegian companies after article 35 has expired three years from the date of accession, they can bypass article 44, having regard to the judgment in the Factortame case? I think that my hon. Friend would refer me to annexes 11 and 12, but there is a problem because if my hon. Friend tells me that the Norwegians have found a way and have a derogation to get round the Factortame case, may we please have one for our fishing industry? Equally, if the Norwegians have not found a way around the Factortame case, surely we ought to let the Norwegian public know about that before they vote in the forthcoming referendum.
  A number of constitutional issues are involved, but in view of the time I shall not dwell on any more. Another issue worries me, however. There is no money resolution attached to the Bill. I wonder why the business managers of the House have not found such a resolution necessary. I wonder whether they do the House a disservice by not providing one. How can we know that no money resolution is necessary? If money is required for new purposes, surely the treaty would be void unless we have a money resolution, according to the rules of this House.
  I take as my text a House of Commons Library research paper. I shall not read it but intend to make extensive use of the notes. It states that
  "Spending covered by headings 3 to 6 of the financial perspective was not touched on in the enlargement negotiations. A new financial perspective setting out the spending projections and own resource ceilings for the years ahead has not yet been agreed. Adjusting the ceilings for the different headings of the budget is likely to generate much debate. For example, it is not clear what increase, if any, there should be in the administrative budget."
  Potentially, new money might be required for new members. Yet the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:
  "The Bill, however, will have no direct financial consequences in the UK."
  I wonder if that is so.
  How will our contribution be judged? In terms of increased gross national product, the inclusion of the four EFTA states represents an increase of about 8 per cent., whereas in terms of the number of countries, their inclusion will represent an increase of 33 per cent. The Library brief continues:
  "It is unknown which of these increases, if either, will be used as the basis to justify an increase in administrative spending…the UK has a clear interest in restricting any increase"
  in spending on external action since it is
  "outside the Fontainebleu…system."
  If that is the case, I wonder whether we can rely on the statement in the explanatory memorandum that
  "The Bill, however, will have no direct financial consequences."
  The emphasis seems to me to be on the word "direct".
  746
  I am reasonably happy about the Bill—certainly happier than I have been about any previous European legislation—because it deals primarily with the question of accession. Some of us believe that, in general, widening is good—notwithstanding what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—while deepening, if we ever establish what it is, is not.
  I would vote for the treaty, on the assumption that it is mainly about enlargement. According to the 398 pages of the treaty, however, under revised qualified majority voting we are ensuring more power for the centre and the substitution of bureaucracy for democracy. I am prepared to vote for the treaty because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured what I hope will prove an immensely valuable—indeed, epoch-making—triumph at Corfu, and therefore deserves our support.
  During the forthcoming weeks and months, of course, many of us will wish to judge both my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Office on whether all the business in Corfu is purely temporary rhetoric—given treaties such as this, devoted to ever-closer union, we must have some misgivings about it—or whether Corfu signals a real determination to stand up for British interests. Along with most of the men and women on the street, in the pub and in the shops, I fervently hope that the latter is the case.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Like others who have spoken, I welcome the accession of the new member states: two republics and two kingdoms with republican tinges will add to the democratic orientation of Europe.
  The problem of neo-fascism is now raising its head. I was disappointed at the way in which the Foreign Secretary gave the brush-off to widespread concern in Europe about the entry into the Italian Government of supporters of neo-fascism—open supporters of Mussolini and anti-semitism. It is clear that we must have diplomatic relations with the Italian Government, but Opposition Members are dismayed that the Foreign Secretary will not join those in other European countries in expressing at least some concern about those developments.
  We look forward to the arrival of Nordic and Austrian Members of the European Parliament and their quota of officials in Brussels. They will get something of a shock, of course, when they discover the immense secrecy which surrounds the Council of Ministers. I do not know how many hon. Members are aware that every Swedish citizen has the right to see every letter to, and from, the Swedish Prime Minister's office; I cannot imagine No. 10 Downing street wanting Lord Archer's billets-doux spread all over the newspapers, but I commend that policy of freedom of information to my hon. and good Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose occupancy will begin in a year or two.
  I salute the struggle undertaken by the Financial Times and The Guardian to obtain details of the voting of the Council of Ministers—the release of which was blocked by our own Government, with others. I hope that the arrival of new Ministers from the four acceding states will help to dampen that British disease of secrecy and to shape a more democratic and open Europe.
  As a materialist, I am grateful for the fact that—as the explanatory memorandum of the Bill makes clear—there will be no cost to our country. According to the latest Eurostat figures, Britain has for the first time moved into

  747
  the bottom half of the league table of economic wealth in the European Union, expressed in terms of per capita gross domestic product; we are below the average for the 12 European member states, and we shall be even further into the second division—along with Greece, Portugal and Spain—when Sweden, Austria and Norway join the Union.
  Perhaps the Spanish question had something to do with the fact that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), went to Spain recently—or rather not to Spain, but to Catalonia: we are being very particular about nations tonight—where he made a speech in which he criticised the values of the European Union as expressed by most of its member states. He was kind enough to send me a copy of that speech in the original Spanish, and it was most illuminating. Nowhere in it are the words "European Union" or "European Community" to be found; the vision of Europe—the only term used in the speech—expressed by the Government through the Chief Secretary in Barcelona was a vision of a simple free trade area, with no barriers to the exchange of goods and services.
  We all know that the Chief Secretary has a major vision of the future—or perhaps I should say a post-Major vision—in which the values and necessities that have led the acceding countries to join the European Union are not considered. I await with interest his thematic speech on national sovereignty, in which he must distance himself still further from the Government's position on Europe if he is to be true to the course on which he has embarked.
  I do not know whether the Chief Secretary went to see a bull fight during his stay in Barcelona, but I am assured by my many Spanish friends that Britain will be a truly European country only when bull fights are allowed in Hyde park. I am sure that no House of Commons of which I would wish to be a member would permit such a thing; for the humble Spanish business man who wants to export his sport to Britain, however, to ban bull fighting is to interfere with his right to trade.
  I have no problems with British sovereignty when it comes to banning bull fighting, but I understand that British farmers are not happy with the sovereignty of the German Parliament when it comes to banning British beef. I also understand that British airline companies were not happy when the French sovereign Parliament and Government wanted to ban flights to Orly, and that British ferry operators are not happy about the Spanish Government's current refusal to run a service between Spain and north Africa. Certainly, steel workers in my constituency of Rotherham are not happy about the sovereign Parliament-backed decision of the Italian Government to maintain subsidies for steel plants in Italy, thus damaging the competitive market that steel producers rightly demand in Europe.
  I remain a great believer in the sovereignty of free peoples and nations in deciding their destiny, and their right to join like-minded nations in common projects—NATO, the Nordic Union mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) or, indeed, the European Union itself. Conservative Euro-sceptics, however, should be careful before making the Chief Secretary to the Treasury their standard bearer. He is not at all interested in the sovereignty of the British people in Parliament; he is interested only in the sovereignty of the global capitalist market. If every last British citizen were employed by a foreign firm, if every economic decision affecting the United Kingdom were taken in the United
  748
  States of America or Japan, if English land were sold to stage Spanish bull fights at a profit, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury would not care because for him neither the nation nor its citizens count for aught against his beloved global market.
  The Chief Secretary's position is coherent. It involves the new totalitarianism of the market, in which all human values are replaced by money values. His argument is not about British sovereignty or protecting the nations that make up the United Kingdom, a subject on which many Conservative Members spoke so eloquently during debates on the Maastricht treaty and today.
  How can such sovereignty be protected? I turn to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and that faced by the proud Nordic nations. They have decided that their sovereignty can best be enhanced through co-operation with the other nations of Europe. Austria, which more than any other state in 20th century Europe knows what it means to lose her sovereignty, has decided both through parliamentary debate and through a referendum that the best protection for Austrian values and prosperity lies in full partnership with the rest of Europe.
  Unlike the British people, countries such as Austria and Finland have experienced the full raging of communist, capitalist and fascist totalitarianism in the 20th century. The new intolerance of the uncontrolled, unaccountable and unregulated market is in full flow across the world. Day by day, unemployment lines grow, civil wars break out and our streets are less safe to walk in. That shows the new totalitarianism of money power over human and democratic values.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman explain in his analysis why the least regulated markets throughout the world have the highest level of employment? One has only to consider countries such as the United States of America or those in the far east to realise that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I think that hon. Members should return to the subject of Europe.
  Mr. MacShane: I shall return to that subject and cite Switzerland, where I worked for many years, which has maintained full employment and which is the most regulated country in Europe. As they say in Switzerland, if it is not forbidden, it is compulsory.
  The new European Union must succeed in defeating the new totalitarianism of money power if we are to create a world that is both economically efficient and spiritually and socially rewarding. I welcome the accession of the four new members to the European Union because they will strengthen the human and democratic values of Europe. While working with the grain of the market, they will not blindly worship Mammon, the God of the new, all-powerful market totalitarians.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a speech in what has been a fairly wide-ranging debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting but idiosyncratic analysis of the way in which European and modern world economies are developing.

  749
  I gladly welcome the likely accession to the European Union of Austria, Sweden, Norway and Finland for the reasons given by hon. Members, from whichever party—those countries' European cultural and democratic traditions and their participation in the economic and security structures that have developed in our continent since the last war. The Bill and the treaty are at best no more than an interim measure, a halfway house towards the new constitutional structure that we shall need in a wider and more diverse European Union and that we are perhaps midway to creating.
  The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) alluded to some of the decision-making difficulties that were bound to arise with the widening of the European Community. The hon. Member for Rotherham said that he welcomed the fact that there would be new Members of the European Parliament from new member states and that new quotas of officials from Scandinavian countries and Austria would be arriving at their Brussels offices for the first time. A considerable proportion of those officials will be made up of the numerous translators who will be needed to cope with the additions to the list of official working languages that will be used in the European Community. Commissioners from the new member states will be appointed to a college of Commissioners which, even after the reforms introduced under the Maastricht treaty, is struggling pretty hard to find a worthwhile job for each member of the college.
  Most important is the fact that, with the enlargement of the Community—with the four potential new members now, with the likely accession of the four Visegrad countries in the next five or 10 years and with the possible inclusion of other new member states in southern and eastern Europe thereafter—there will be a real problem over the decision-making process within the European Union. We saw that point illustrated in the debates—the Council of Ministers had to arrive at an acceptable formula for qualified majority voting. The hon. Member for Durham, North mentioned the problem of trying to strike the right balance between the right of small member states to be properly represented when the Community makes decisions and the right of the large nations, representing the largest share of the population of the Community, to have their influence fairly expressed.
  In a Union in which unanimity will still be required for many important decisions, it will become increasingly difficult to take effective decisions and to manage business if we stick to the present allocation of competences as laid down by the existing treaties and to the present system for voting within the Council of Ministers. In the future, it will be easy for one small state to block the decision of, perhaps, the 19 or 24 other member states that form the majority. We have seen that difficulty arising already over, for example, the Greek blockade of Macedonia in defiance of the express wishes of the other member states of the Union. There is a risk that we shall end up either with a Community that is incapable of taking any decisions or with a Community whose policies are determined by the lowest common denominator of what might be agreed.
  The constitutional problem could be tackled in various ways. One coherent, logical approach is the federal approach. Although I do not agree with the arguments put forward by Commissioner Delors, one must accept that his
  750
  proposals amount to a logical, carefully thought-out solution to the constitutional difficulties that are inevitable in a larger, wider European Union. Nor do I think that we should see the federal model as being the Delors model only. Chancellor Kohl is a man who, as a university student, helped to tear down the border posts between France and Germany. He is a man who, throughout his career, has been openly committed to some sort of united states of Europe. His may be a much more decentralised model than that coming from Mr. Delors, who springs from the French political tradition. The Chancellor would probably wish to see a European Union that amounted to the Federal Republic of Germany writ large on the continental scale—a very decentralised political structure, but a uniform political structure with the same political responsibilities being allocated to each member state and a common core of decision-making powers being held at the centre.
  Such a federal Europe might be, in the words of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), a more democratic Europe, but it would be democratic only in the sense that there would be a right on the part of the majority of elected representatives across the continent to outvote the minority even if that minority included an almost unanimous expression of national opinion in one or two dissenting countries. Therein lies the trouble with the federal approach.
  It is my firm belief that, although in some continental countries, especially among the political leaders of those nations, there is still strong support for the federal approach to Europe, the referendums in France and Denmark and the discontent in Germany at the prospect of losing the deutschmark show growing disquiet on the continent, and not solely in this country, about where that approach to the political future of Europe may lead. I do not believe that people here see themselves as Europeans first. They see themselves as British people first and their allegiance is to the affection for, and loyalty to, the nation. Perhaps, after that, their allegiance is to the common cultural and political traditions that we share with other nations on the continent of Europe.
  British interests would be best served by a simpler, looser political structure of the European Union in the future. That cannot simply be a free-trade area. Anyone who holds to that belief needs only to pick up a history book to see that no British ruler or British Government over many centuries doubted that British interests involved seeking to influence the outlook and the policy of the major powers of the continent of Europe. Even if, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, we have the wrong treaty at the moment, it is for that reason that it is the duty of any patriotic British Government who seek to act in the best interests of their citizens to engage with the political and constitutional structures that exist on the continent of Europe and to seek to advance our interests, negotiation by negotiation, treaty by treaty, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team are doing.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the weakness of it is that he equates patriotic British interest with Conservative attitudes. He says that they are the same and they are not the same. Not only hon. Members on the Liberal

  751
  Democrats' Bench but, obviously, those on the official Opposition Benches interpret interest in a very different way.
  Mr. Lidington: I have far too great a respect for the hon. Gentleman to seek in any way to impugn his wish or that of other Opposition Members to advance the British interests as they see them, but we would differ on how to identify those interests over particular political decisions.
  I shall move on to how I see those arguments relating to the agenda which faces the Government as they approach the next IGC in 1996 or, perhaps, in 1997. The looser-knit European political structure—the simpler European Union, which would be in our best interests—will probably be beyond our capacity to achieve precisely because in many of our partner nations the wish to drive towards a much closer political union on the model envisaged by the founding fathers of the Community remains so strong. I honestly doubt whether public opinion in those countries, even in France and Germany, will catch up with that view of the political elite in time to influence the IGC wholly in the direction that we wish to go. The idea of a multi-speed Europe, which was advocated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the recent European election campaign, provides us with a way forward which may accommodate different views about how Europe should develop.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at present—is utterly wrong in believing that the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Europe has failed to chime with the instincts of the British people. I am not aware of the feeling in Harrow, but in my constituency many people, Conservative supporters and others with no strong political affiliation, have told me that my right hon. Friend's approach is the way in which we should seek to establish the future of the European Union.
  Do we describe that approach as multi-speed Europe, variable geometry, made-to-measure Europe or, as one journalist has described it, a Europe of consenting adults? Those terms offer only a choice of labels. The key is that the constitutional arrangements for Europe should be tailored to take account of the diversity of the Community that we are creating. That way forward will enable us to reconcile the need to develop European unity to ensure material prosperity in future and to ensure that we maintain the peace that has prevailed in the western half of the continent since 1945, thereby checking the destructive nationalism that has brought European civilisation to the brink of ruin twice this century.
  At the same time, I believe that the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Europe will enable us to deal with the reality of diverse national histories and national interests, along with the fact that most people's affection and loyalty lie first with the nation state and not with the supranational administration. It would be foolish indeed if we ceded the patriotic themes to the representatives of atavistic nationalism. I fear that that would happen if the European Union again started to take the federalist, centralist route and tried to place a straitjacket on the diverse ways of a Community that wears a costume originally devised for a Community of six in the 1950s.
  As we approach the intergovernmental conference, I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I always
  752
  enjoy my hon. Friend's speeches but I felt that this evening he sounded rather like the Tory grandees of the early 1980s, who used to say that we could not dare to tackle trade union powers, old boy, and that the climate of the times was against us. Such sentiments were usually broached shortly before a grandee was elevated suddenly to another place. I would not like my hon. Friend to get measured for his ermine immediately.
  When I talk to German politicians—especially those of a younger generation—I find that they want to discuss how to limit the accretion of competence to supranational level. They are well aware that the accession of Poland and other central European countries to the Union will break the common agricultural policy. They understand that that will have to be faced because the accession of central European countries is recognised as a critical matter of German national interest. Even French politicians are talking about variable geometry.
  As we British politicians approach 1996 we must outline a robust agenda for constitutional change in Europe. We need to question the extent of the acquis communautaire. We must ask which competences we should consider repatriating to national level. We should raise in debate matters such as the Commission's sole right of initiative, the powers of the presidency and the balance of interest between the larger and smaller nations.
  Although we have not yet won the debate, the time for ideas to prevail in the end is now more propitious than at any stage during the past two decades. I believe that the Europe of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speaks is one that not merely is in Britain's best interests but offers prosperity and peace for the continent as a whole.
  9.19 pm
  Ms Joyce Quin: Despite differences of view on many aspects of the European Union, today in the House there has been virtually unanimous agreement about, and support for, enlargement. The accession of Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden has been welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that people in those four countries will be encouraged, when they read accounts of this debate, by the solid support for their accession to the European Union which has been expressed in the House.
  This wide-ranging debate contained many interesting contributions about the future development of the European Union after enlargement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) referred to some of the habitués of these debates about Europe. Despite some new contributions, there was a sense of continuity about the debate, in particular in relation to those who took part in it.
  Before coming to the Chamber today, I read through the reports of the proceedings on the Single European Act. Many of the hon. Members who spoke today or who made interventions also took part in the debate on the Single European Act, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).
  Conservative Members who participated in the debates on that crypto-federalist measure, the Single European Act, and who spoke today included the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). We have heard today

  753
  interventions from the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who took part in the earlier debate, and I was intrigued to read that the hon. Member for Stafford said:
  "We tend to exaggerate the dangers of majority voting."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 378.]
  Mr. Cash: And I will repeat those remarks today. However, I also tabled an amendment to the effect that nothing in that legislation should derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am glad to say that that amendment was signed by one other Member of this place, and that was the former right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Mr. Enoch Powell.
  Ms Quin: There is at least continuity in respect of the views of Members for Wolverhampton, South-West.
  Even the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory), who is to reply to the debate, surfaced briefly in the Committee stage of the measure. Rather to my surprise, he supported an amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. Perhaps the Minister had fallen prey to a bout of Euroscepticism at the time. Towering over that debate, as he admitted himself today, was the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He referred today rather graphically to his stained hands in relation to the former debates.
  I am glad that there has been a wide welcome for enlargement of the European Union. I hope that we all want the Bill to receive a speedy passage through the House. It has been allocated two days for debate about which many people are happy. None the less, at the end of that time, we hope that there will be a ringing endorsement of enlargement. Labour will not support amendments which seek to delay or place obstacles before enlargement.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to the four applicant countries. I echo those tributes, particularly the tributes to their fine democratic and social democratic traditions. I want to refer to the outstanding role that the four countries have played in foreign policy, particularly through the United Nations, where their activities have probably not been equalled by other countries. I pay tribute to the Norwegian Labour Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, for the work she has done to highlight and draw attention to the issues of environment and development on a world scale.
  My hon. Friends spoke in particular about the strong links between the Labour party and its counterparts in the four applicant countries and the similar views we hold on social, environmental, economic, regional and industrial issues. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West stressed the links between the Labour party and the traditions and beliefs of those four countries. He felt that that meant that a natural alliance would be established between the Labour party and those countries in the Union in future. The Opposition welcome their commitment to the social chapter, although it is not surprising to us given their record on social issues.
  I am sure that those countries will be warmly welcomed in the European Union. As many hon. Members have already pointed out, however, referendums need to be held in the three Scandinavian countries, where public opinion
  754
  has varied from semi-enthusiasm to hostility. I hope that it will be persuaded of the merits of accession when the referendums take place in the autumn. It is encouraging that the terms of the accession treaty have been accepted in those four countries, so there is no outstanding difficulty about those terms. That augurs well for the future.
  Many hon. Members who referred to enlargement talked about widening and deepening Europe—my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) stressed that. Some Conservative Members expressed the hope that widening the European Union would dilute it and that we would move towards establishing a free trade area. That is wishful thinking, and I am glad that some Conservative Members explicitly recognised that. The hon. Member for Harrow, East described it as phantasmagoric mythology.
  I do not believe that the applicant countries would have applied to join the European Union if they had thought it was simply a free trade area. They are, after all, already members of the European economic area, and if they were completely satisfied with that arrangement it is unlikely that they would have applied for and been granted full membership of the Union.
  Many hon. Members spoke about the effects of enlargement on the institutional arrangements in the European Union. We all agreed that we hoped that it would strengthen the democratic element in the Union. Hon. Members disagreed, however, on various aspects—for example, the extent of the Government's achievements, if they can be described as such, at Ioannina were disputed.
  The Foreign Secretary said, once again, that we had won a review of the qualified majority voting system, but that was always the case, because it was mentioned in previous presidency conclusions that it would be possible to raise anything related to the institutional workings of the union at the 1996 intergovernmental conference. It was always on the agenda and a wide-ranging statement, a catch-all clause, in previous presidency conclusions made that absolutely clear.
  Mr. Hurd: Let us be clear about this: what was possible, as the hon. Lady correctly said, is now certain.
  Ms Quin: It was certain before, because a wide-ranging clause allowed countries to raise anything they wanted. Between now and 1996 other issues may crop up that Governments may want to raise and they will be able to do so because of the wide-ranging provision that already exists. We must bear that in mind.
  There was a large measure of agreement in the House about making the decisions of the European Union subject to democratic scrutiny. Many of us who took part in the debate on enlargement in European Standing Committee B felt that it should have reached a wider audience and should have been part of a debate on the Floor of the House. Perhaps I could appeal to the media not to ignore the work of the European Standing Committees. Valuable work is done there by Members on both sides but, unfortunately, little attention is paid to their work.
  The Commission's role in an enlarged European Union was also mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, although who will preside over that Commission is still uncertain. Having vetoed a European Conservative, the Government seem to be prepared, according to one rumour, to rush into the arms of an Italian socialist as president of the European Commission. I wonder whether

  755
  the Minister of State will enlighten us about the current position, as we should be grateful for any information that he can give us. We wonder whether history will repeat itself and the Government will repeat the actions of the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness Thatcher, who apparently agreed to the appointment of Jacques Delors as Commission President when all that she knew about, him was that he was intelligent and energetic.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House discussed the preparation of the intergovernmental conference of the enlarged European Union. That is an important matter. Many thoughtful contributions were made about the kind of issues that we could raise at the IGC. While my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool raised the spectre of another Maastricht in terms of how we might deal with the matter in the House, he spoke for all of us when he said that he hoped that we would look seriously at all the options open to us regarding the future of the European Union.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady explain what the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) meant when he said that he was against a federal Europe but in favour of deepening and of nation states? I notice that he is now telling the hon. Lady the answer.
  Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was not so extraordinary that I could not have coped with it myself. The hon. Gentleman's concept of "federalism" seems to equate to the idea of a centralised super-state. May I say firmly that we have not criticised the Government for over-centralism suddenly to accept centralism at a European level. When my right hon. Friend spoke about "deepening", he was referring to areas on which we are on record as wanting further co-operation in Europe, particularly but not exclusively social and environmental matters. We want this country to play a full part in those negotiations and are worried that the Government's policy simply puts us on the sidelines.
  Many hon. Members, again on both sides of the House, made some thoughtful contributions on future enlargement of the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) discussed the Baltic states and common foreign and security policy. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland on the application of Cyprus and Malta, and I add my voice to the general welcome given to eventual enlargement including countries of central and eastern Europe. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are all candidates in the short or medium term. Obviously, there will be problems with further enlargement, but many of them can be dealt with through transitional periods and special recognition of particular problems. Opportunities, too, will arise in any enlargement to include the countries of central and eastern Europe. For example, it is hard to imagine that the common agricultural policy could keep its present structure if many more countries join, especially if those countries already have a strong agriculture. We should therefore take the positive and constructive opportunities open to us.
  Mr. Marlow: Further to the philosophical arguments about deepening and so on, is the hon. Lady in favour of a multi-track Europe, or does she believe that all member states must eventually move at the same speed?
  Ms Quin: To a certain extent, given that enlargement will take place in phases, it is true that not all countries will
  756
  be at the same stage. However, we are worried that there will be a two-speed Europe, with Britain in the slow lane. That would not be in Britain's interest and we are very much against it.
  Social policy has been mentioned by many of my hon. Friends. That is not surprising. I was delighted that in the conclusions to the Corfu summit the European Council welcomed the additional impetus coming from the new countries and described them as being
  "in the vanguard of the efforts to promote environmental and social protection, transparency and open government, areas considered essential by a large part of the Union's citizens".
  I certainly endorse that.
  We feel as strongly as ever that this country should be part of the European social chapter. In a debate last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and I spoke about some of the appallingly low wage rates that are all too common in Britain today and the poor employment protection which gives people at work little say about their work and little protection against such things as unfair dismissal.
  We believe strongly that the recent improvements in employment law in Britain have resulted from the impetus from Europe. For example, the right to a written statement, maternity rights and better rights for part-time workers spring from the European dimension, and that is something which we welcome strongly. Certainly, the examples cited by my hon. Friends, including that of Austria, show once again that there is simply no link between poor employment conditions and a high level of employment.
  Earlier today, the Prime Minister spoke about Britain having a larger proportion of its population in work than most other European countries. Of course, the country which has a greater proportion of its population in work than we have is Denmark, which has high levels of social protection and good wages. Once again, that proves that there is no facile link between the two—poor wages and high employment—as the Conservatives constantly tell us.
  On environmental policy, we feel close to the new countries, as, indeed, we do on economic policy. The former Swedish Finance Minister, Allan Larssen, helped to draw up an economic policy document for the Socialist group in the European Parliament and for the Confederation of European socialist parties—a publication which I would recommend to Tory Members in terms of its commitment to economic growth.
  We have heard very different views about Europe from the Government side. From the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary came under considerable pressure from his own Back Benchers. The Government seem to get buffeted this way and that. As they get so buffeted, it becomes less clear what the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in Government think and what is their strategy for Europe in the future.
  It is also not clear who will win the battle. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North predicted that the Euro-sceptics would sweep all before them, although he referred at the beginning of his speech to the "virus" of Euro-scepticism. The thought of such a virus spreading across Europe caused me some alarm.
  The right hon. Gentleman also paid a tribute to the former leader of the Conservative MEPs, Sir Christopher Prout. Many of the things that we have heard in this debate are completely at odds with the commitments made by Sir Christopher Prout and his former colleagues in the European Parliament—when the number of Conservative

  757
  MEPs was more than it is now—when they considered the matter of enlargement. They committed themselves to abolishing the unanimity provisions in the treaty and giving the President of the Commission a stronger role, and they implied that future revisions of the treaties could be carried out without the current requirement for unanimity and ratification by all national Parliaments. Those are different views from the ones expressed by Conservatives today. Within the space of a week, we have also had the astonishing spectacle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying one thing about a single European currency and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying something completely different. I was asked about a multi-speed Europe. It seems that the Conservatives are not only in favour of a multi-speed Europe; they are also a multi-speed party in their consideration of these issues.
  I conclude by strongly welcoming this enlargement of the European Union. I am pleased that the Labour party will be in the European mainstream during the enlargement process. We believe that we should all share the commitment by these new countries to a social Europe, an environmental Europe and a Europe of economic growth. With these four new countries in place and, I hope, with the support of a Labour Government in place in Britain even before the IGC, I trust that we shall be able to deliver policies that will mean a more prosperous Europe. That will be good news for Britain and for the British people.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): This has been a wide-ranging debate, as expected. It has ranged from the origins of the enlargement negotiations to a forward look at the prospects of bringing in more states in Europe in subsequent enlargement rounds—a process to which we look forward. Many right hon. and hon. Members have touched on our aims in the European Union. The Government believe strongly that the Union must maintain its free-trading vocation, which is why we put so much store by the successful conclusion to the Uruguay round last year.
  We also believe that the EU must attend to the health or otherwise of the European economy. We must pay more attention to the problems of unemployment and of how we can turn economic growth into more jobs. That is why the Conservatives promote policies of deregulation, of lightening the burden of employment costs and of making labour markets work better.
  The United Kingdom opt-out from the social chapter has become ever more important over the months, a point frequently made this evening by Conservative Members. There has also been greater cohesion in European foreign policy, and measures are being taken to tackle crime and justice matters by means of the intergovernmental pillars set out in the Maastricht treaty.
  We realise that all this is not enough for the European Union to regain its dynamism; it must continue to expand. Thus it was that the idea of four new member states joining the Union had long been advocated by the Government. It was during the British presidency of two years ago that the negotiations were finally given the necessary impetus. In
  758
  the event, they took rather more than a year, but that was still easily a record compared with previous enlargement rounds.
  All four Eftan states are instinctively free trading, all are fully democratic and all have a well developed sense of nationhood—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) among others. All are already in the European economic area, so they already enjoy a good measure of free trade with the EU. But their Governments believe that that is not enough. They want to be on the inside, shaping the rules and participating in the development of a common European foreign policy instead of being relegated to the status of spectators as the EU develops.
  The European Union is now exerting a strong magnetic field on surrounding European states. Many speakers in this debate have therefore looked beyond this enlargement round to the next, and even to the one after that. Already six additional states have applied to join the EU: Turkey, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus. Some of them are not proceeding at present, for various reasons, but it was absurd and wrong of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to suggest that the Prime Minister was ruling out Cypriot accession before a resolution of the dispute in the island. My right hon. Friend was rightly facing up to the difficulties of bringing a divided island into the European Union because, at least on the face of it, that would conflict with the requirements for free movement of people and goods in the Community.
  Dr. Cunningham: How is it that we could contemplate a divided Germany in Europe but not a divided Cyprus?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is a master of misleading analogies. If he had studied better the problems of Cyprus, he would know that bringing in a community with ethnic divisions which date back to the invasion of northern Cyprus by Turkey during the period of office of a Labour Government would create substantial difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to draw attention to those problems. That is not being negative: it is being realistic and constructive and facing the issues. That is what government is about.
  Future enlargement of the Union will raise important institutional questions touching on such matters as the size of the Commission and the qualified majority voting arrangements, and will also raise problems of cost. My right hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) rightly and eloquently spoke about the difficulties of contemplating enlargement to include central and eastern European countries in the light of the common agricultural policy. It is doubtful that the CAP as structured at present and the current structural funds could survive if countries from behind the former iron curtain joined the Union.
  The present round of enlargement has not put the CAP under such pressure. Agricultural prices in three of the four countries are substantially higher than those that obtain in the rest of the Community. Bringing them down to the same level will mean substantial expenditure. However, because the four states, with the possible exception of Finland, will be net contributors to the budget, the problem of unacceptable and unsustainable costs does not arise at this stage.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) suggested that we should engage with the

  759
  countries of central and eastern Europe in foreign and security policy before they join the Community in their entirety. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We can make progress on some of those issues now but others will remain for the intergovernmental conference in 1996.
  Mr. Cash: Would my hon. Friend care to repeat what I understood him to say during the European elections—that he regarded a single currency as liable to dilute our sovereignty and that, from his point of view at any rate, although not speaking on behalf of the Government, it was not a satisfactory move in the right direction?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was correctly reported during the press conference to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) raised the question of the study or reflection group.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry. I am answering a point raised in the debate. It is incumbent on me to reply to points already raised rather than to respond to new ones.
  I can assure the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that the group will consider a wide range of contributions not only from member states but from non-governmental sources. I hope that, through channels such as Select Committees, the House will find ways of contributing in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference. The right hon. Gentleman courteously informed me that he would not be here for the conclusion of the debate, so perhaps I can send him a message through the Official Report, which he may read tomorrow. The Luxembourg compromise, about which he was concerned, still exists. He was anxious about its health. I can confirm that, whereas it may be asleep, it is none the less alive—indeed, the French Government reaffirmed their support for it during their Maastricht debate.
  Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have a number of points to answer.
  There was some speculation about the attitudes of applicant states and how they would use their influence in the European Union after they had joined. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) believes that they will be enthusiastic volunteers for a deeper, more integrated community. They are all vigorous democracies and all views have been expressed within them.
  It is worth referring to recent remarks by Cabinet Ministers in those states. In particular, I want to quote Carl Bildt, the Prime Minister of Sweden. He thanked this country for our influence in smoothing the way to accession and said that Britain was
  "instrumental in the shaping of a new Europe that is larger, more open and less intrusive."
  On the question of social issues, which was raised more than once in the debate, the same Prime Minister said:
  "While the European Community should have a social dimension, most of the social policy issues are better dealt with at local, regional and national level."
  I hesitate to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), but I think that he was saying that the advent of the four countries would make monetary union more likely. I can give him
  760
  some reassurance because Sweden's Finance Minister, when asked about Sweden's participation in the third phase of European monetary union, said:
  "That depends on when we satisfy the entry requirements and also on when we want to be included…Sweden will not automatically become a member of the final monetary union just because we ratify our membership of the EU."
  I hope that that note of caution will be of some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If I have a few minutes to spare at the end of my remarks I will give way to hon. Gentleman, as I know he has not made a speech.
  We all recognise that the four member states will not line up with us on all issues. It would be odd if they did and that would not be the sort of European Union in which they believe. They have different attitudes, traditions and interests. Defending those interests is fully compatible with membership of the European Union. That was evident during the negotiations, which were long and hard fought. We protected our interests and they protected theirs.
  On the question of fisheries, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) that in all important respects we fully protected the British fishing industry. Indeed, the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations wrote to the Government after the negotiations saying:
  "The satisfactory outcome to the accession negotiations…is very welcome indeed."
  My hon. Friend raised a number of specific issues about fisheries which I do not have time to respond to now, but I will write to him.
  The debate raised a new and startling development in Labour policy. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen still retain the capacity to surprise us. We heard news of a new opt-out by the Labour party. The right hon. Member for Copeland announced a ban on any dealings with Ministers in the new Italian Government from the National Alliance party. [Interruption.] I am getting it exactly right. The right hon. Gentleman called them neo-fascists, although, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, that is not how they describe themselves. The right hon. Gentleman is digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole. He is saying that any future Labour Government would boycott any meeting with those individuals, including any Council meeting. Five Ministers from that party are in the new Italian coalition Government. In the unlikely event of there being a Labour Government, we would have an empty British chair at Transport, Agriculture and Environment Council meetings. Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman intended this, he is advocating an opt-out by the United Kingdom not only from policies discussed at those Council meetings but from any chance of defending Britain's national interests at those meetings.
  I cannot imagine a more fatuous policy based on such a petulant reaction to the result of an Italian general election. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North rightly said, that attitude is bizarre and sanctimonious—and it is almost incomprehensible from a Labour Front-Bench spokesman with any pretension or aspiration to office.
  The Bill and the treaty are an invitation to the House to approve and to ratify the accession of four new member states. Those countries do not countenance membership to

  761
  submerge themselves in a formless and shapeless Union or to lose their identity like lumps of sugar in a cup of tea. As Finland's Prime Minister said recently:
  "The European Union is made up of independent and sovereign states that have voluntarily decided to exercise their jurisdiction together on certain issues."
  All of us on the Conservative Benches agree with that sentiment.
  We hope that the three referendums yet to be held in applicant states will endorse membership. The last referendum will be held at the end of November, which is why the Bill is presented to the House now. If one or more of the referendums were to fail, no renegotiation of the treaty would be necessary. A Council decision would be taken to make the consequential changes that may be necessary to such matters as qualified majority voting.
  Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked what would happen to the treaty's qualified majority voting figures if one or more of the applicants failed to ratify. The answer is that the allocation of votes to the non-acceding country would be deleted from the treaty and any new voting threshold set. Article 2 of the treaty provides for that. The threshold would be reset at a lower level, but that would not alter in any way the decision made at Ioannina, which protects our position when 23 votes are in opposition to a prospective decision or piece of European legislation.
  The debate made clear the support that exists in all parts of the House for entry of the four EFTA states. We see that not only as a welcome step in its own right, but as a milestone on the way to a Europe that is whole—a Europe that achieves freedom while respecting diversity. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  Scottish Business
  9.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—

  (a) Standing Orders No. 93 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland), No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee), No. 96 (Scottish estimates) and No. 97 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland) shall be repealed, and the following Standing Orders A to H below shall have effect;

  (b) Standing Orders No. 13 (Arrangement of public business), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 91 (Special standing committees) shall be amended as set out below; and

  (c) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.

  A. Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)
  (1) There shall be a standing committee called the Scottish Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Scottish constituencies; and of which (subject to paragraph (6) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) the quorum shall be ten.
  (2) The business of the Committee shall include—

  (a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));

  (b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates));

  (c) ministerial statements proceeded with in accordance with Standing Order D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements));

  (d) bills referred to it for consideration in relation to their principle, in accordance with Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle));

  (e) motions relating to statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments, referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments, &c));

  (f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, notice of which has been given in accordance with Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)); and

  (g) motions for the adjournment of the committee, to be made after the interruption of business, as provided in Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)).

  B. Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)
  (1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Scottish Grand Committee by Scottish Office ministers or Scottish law officers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
  (2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  (3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
  (4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no question shall be taken later then three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
  (5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:
  Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
  C. Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)
  (1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Scottish Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.

  763
  (2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph ( I) of this order must relate to the official responsibilities of Scottish Office ministers or Scottish law officers.
  (3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
  (4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
  (5)(a) No member of the committee except the minister or law officer replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.
  (b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the minister or law officer replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other members of the committee may speak for three minutes.
  (c) The chairman may direct any member of the committee who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.
  (6) Notices of subjects under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:
  Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
  D. Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)
  (1) The chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee may permit a Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer, whether or not a member of the committee, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
  (2) Ministerial statements may be made for the purpose of—

  (a) facilitating the questioning by members of the committee of the minister or law officer, as the case may be, about a matter relating to his official responsibilities as provided in the second column of the eleventh sub-paragraph of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments), in which case proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion not later than three-quarters of an hour after their commencement; or

  (b) announcing the policy of the Government on a matter relating to Scotland or the response of the Government to an event relating to Scotland, in which case proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.

  (3) Ministerial statements may be made—

  (a) at the commencement of a sitting; or

  (b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or

  (c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

  (4) A minister or law officer making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a member of the committee, may not do so from the body of the committee; and such a minister or law officer shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
  E. Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)
  (1) After any public bill has been first printed, the Speaker shall, if of the opinion that its provisions relate exclusively to Scotland, give a certificate to that effect:
  Provided that a certificate shall not be withheld by reason only that a provision of that bill amends Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 or Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
  (2) On the order being read for the second reading of a bill so certified, a motion may be made by a member of the Government (or in the case of a private Members' bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business:
  Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.
  (3) A bill so referred to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the
  764
  bill in relation to its principle;' and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of two and half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
  Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above shall be ordered to be read a second time on a future day.
  (5) On the order being read for the second reading of a bill to which paragraph (4) above applies, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or, in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee)' : and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
  (6) If a motion made under the preceding paragraph be agreed to, the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time, and shall stand committed to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee).
  F. Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments, &c.)
  (1) Where—
  (a) a Member has given notice of a motion for a humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion that a draft of an Order in Council be not submitted to Her Majesty in Council, or that a statutory instrument be revoked or be not made, or that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or
  (b) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument be approved,
  a motion may be made by a member of the government, 'That the instrument (or draft instrument) be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
  (2) The committee shall consider each instrument (or draft instrument) referred to it on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the instrument (or draft instrument)'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the motion, if not previously disposed of, not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and shall thereupon report the instrument or draft instrument to the House without any further question being put.
  (3) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 1(a) or 1(b) of this order, in relation to any instrument or draft instrument in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; which may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
  G. Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)
  (1) On each of the days specified in an order of the House under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the Scottish Grand Committee, such motions of which notice has been given in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) below shall have precedence.
  (2) A member of the committee giving notice of a motion for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall—

  (a) also give notice of the subject to which he intends to call attention on the motion for the adjournment of the committee, and

  (b) give such notice of motion and of the subject in writing not later than ten sitting days before that on which the motion is to be made:

  Provided that the subject to which attention is called must relate to Scotland.

  765
  (3) The days specified for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall be allocated as follows—

  (a) six at the disposal of the government;

  (b) four at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition; and, in respect of parties other than that of the Leader of the Opposition,

  (c) one at the disposal of the leader of the largest opposition party; and

  (d) one at the disposal of the leader of the next largest opposition party:

  Provided that a day specified in an order of the House under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) on which business is to be interrupted at or after half-past three o'clock shall, if no business other than that to which this order applies is set down for consideration on that day, be deemed to be two days for the purposes of this order.
  (4) For the purposes of this order, the 'largest' and 'next largest' opposition parties in Scotland shall be those parties, not being represented in Her Majesty's Government and of which the Leader of the Opposition is not a member, which have the largest and next largest number of Members who represent constituencies in Scotland, and of which not fewer than three Members were elected to the House as members of those parties.
  H. Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)
  (1) A motion may be made by a member of the government providing (or varying previous provision) for the Scottish Grand Committee—

  (a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Scotland, the sitting commencing at half-past ten o'clock, and proceedings being interrupted at such hour as may be specified;

  (b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past ten o'clock;

  (c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above;

  (d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified; and

  (e) to consider substantive motions for the adjournment of the committee under Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) on not more than twelve of the days so specified.

  and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided after the time for opposed business:
  Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Scotland, nor from considering at a sitting in Scotland business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.
  (2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Scottish Grand Committee.
  (3) Other than as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)), the government shall determine the precedence of the business appointed for consideration at any sitting of the committee.
  (4) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above, or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
  (5) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned (except substantive motions for the adjournment of the committee under Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) which shall lapse).
  (6) After the interruption of proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a member of the government, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman
  766
  shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made, adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.
  That Standing Orders be amended as follows—
  (i) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business), by adding at the end of line 91 the words—
  "(11) A private Member's bill to which the provisions of paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) have applied, and which has been considered by a Scottish Standing Committee (or by a special standing committee), shall not be set down for consideration on report so as to have precedence over any private Member's bill so set down which was read a second time on a day preceding that on which the bill was reported from the Scottish Grand Committee under paragraph (3) of that Standing Order";
  (ii) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees), in line 1, by leaving out the words "Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee)" and inserting the words "Standing Order A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business))"; and
  (iii) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees), by inserting at the end of line 13 the words—
  "Provided that, in the case of bills certified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) and committed pursuant to paragraph (5) thereof to a special standing committee, the three morning sittings may be held in Scotland".
  I am glad to have the opportunity to put before the House this evening the changes to Standing Orders—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Will those Members who are standing and having a conversation please do so outside or sit down?
  Mr. Lang: I am glad to have the opportunity to put before the House the changes to Standing Orders, which relate primarily to the work of the Scottish Grand Committee, and were envisaged in the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good", published in March last year. The changes will substantially complete the implementation of the proposals made in the White Paper, which have been, and will be, beneficial for Scotland.
  The White Paper followed a serious and detailed consideration of Scottish constitutional issues and of Scotland's place in the United Kingdom, following a pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shortly before the 1992 general election. That was the process that became popularly known as "taking stock."
  In the White Paper, we reaffirmed our belief in the importance of the Union to Scotland and of Scotland to the Union. At the same time, we acknowledged that, from time to time in Scotland, there has been real concern that the Union may not have been functioning as effectively as it might, and we faced up squarely to the need to make the proposals address such shortcomings. The White Paper sought to identify new ways to build on the existing strengths of the Union, recognising that that was a part of a continuing process with the overall aim of strengthening Scotland's place in the Union—an aim which few in the House will challenge.
  I shall summarise the main elements of our proposals, so as to bring the House up to date on the most significant changes, before turning to the Standing Order changes.
  The White Paper emphasised our commitment to Scotland's place in Europe. We have met our commitments to secure substantial representation for Scotland on the Committee of the Regions and to host a Europartenariat,

  767
  which was held in December 1993. Scottish Ministers and Scottish Office officials continue to attend meetings of the Council of Ministers when a discussion has a clear bearing on Scottish interests, and positive steps have been taken to further Scottish links with other parts of Europe.
  The White Paper did much to bring to Scotland more decisions affecting Scotland, and much work has been done to transfer certain functions and powers to the Scottish Office. I shall draw attention to two particularly important examples.
  First, the transfer to me of responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council took effect, as planned, from 1 April this year. It is now established as an independent body with its own royal charter, and I am confident that the council will serve the Scottish arts world well. With the creation of the new council, there is, for the first time, a unified funding structure for the arts in Scotland—all central Government support coming from the Scottish Office.
  Secondly, I also took over responsibility for training policy in Scotland on 1 April. We already had in place unique institutional arrangements for the delivery of Government-funded training programmes with the establishment of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Island Enterprise and the local enterprise companies, leading to a better understanding of local economic demands and of the training required to meet them. My assumption of responsibility for training policy builds on that.
  Significantly, it also rounds out my capacity to influence industrial development by enabling me to consider education and training in an integrated way. It accords well with the additional responsibilities that I recently assumed for funding the universities in Scotland—Scottish institutions, with United Kingdom and international stature, and an important part to play, along with other elements of the education and training system, in the enhancement of the skills base that is vital to our economic success.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State will know that, as a member of the Select Committee on Employment, I have followed developments—as has his Parliamentary Private Secretary—in local enterprise councils and training and enterprise councils, which developed from the experience of Boston private industry councils. In the Boston PICs, a responsibility was placed on the training manager to place people in employment, which is something that we welcome.
  Given the present recession, does the Secretary of State accept that the quotas that he is demanding that those providing training should meet should not apply to those who are training people with special training needs or with physical or mental disabilities? A number of companies—especially those connected with the Scottish Association for Mental Health—are experiencing increasing difficulty in having their contracts renewed because of the quota arrangement.
  Mr. Lang: I understand the specific point that the hon. Gentleman is making. If he wishes to pursue it with me, I shall be happy to look into the details. In general, however, I think that the local enterprise companies have a vital role to play—just as the training and enterprise companies do in England—in co-ordinating and delivering training schemes in the enterprise company areas for which they are responsible. Members of LECs, more than anyone else,
  768
  know the specific needs of their areas, and know how schemes can be adapted and made more flexible to suit particular requirements.
  Those are just one or two examples of the many improvements in the handling of Scottish affairs that flow from the White Paper. Overall, the Government have a highly creditable record of success in delivering what the White Paper promised, improving the way in which the Union works and bringing important benefits to the people of Scotland.
  In that context, and in the same vein, let me deal with the formal business that we are discussing—the changes being made to our Standing Orders to implement the proposals in chapter 6 of the White Paper "Scotland in the Union". Let me remind the House briefly what they are designed to achieve.
  As the White Paper acknowledged, the criticism has often been made that there is too little time in our crowded Westminster schedule for Scottish affairs to be discussed fully and properly. We could debate that criticism at length, but I do not propose to do so; it would be hard to argue that there is too little time for Scottish business when we recently devoted 178 hours to the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, and two and a half days to Report and Third Reading.
  For many years, under Governments of both complexions, there has been a solid programme of Scottish legislation. That programme has given the House opportunities to debate Scottish issues, either on their own or within the framework of United Kingdom debates to which they are relevant. More recently, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—also established by a Conservative Government—has provided a forum for particular issues to be examined in depth.
  The Government have decided, however, that, in the spirit of Scotland in the Union, it is appropriate to seek ways of increasing the opportunities for parliamentary discussion of Scottish affairs. I emphasise that our measures are in no way intended to diminish opportunities for Scottish business to be taken on the Floor of the House; it is the Government's firm intention that matters which merit debate in the Chamber should continue to be given that opportunity. The changes that we are making are intended to provide additional opportunities, rather than a diversion of what we have now.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: According to records that I have obtained from the Library, the Scottish Grand Committee last met in Edinburgh on 1 February last year. Why have no sittings taken place in Edinburgh since that debate on local government reform?
  Mr. Lang: The question when the Scottish Grand Committee should meet and the question when estimates should be debated are the subject of negotiation between the usual channels. Part of the reason is that there has been less pressure than normal for meetings to take place in Scotland. I hope, however, that the measures that I am announcing will provide more opportunities for such matters to be debated not only in Edinburgh, but elsewhere in Scotland.
  The Standing Orders are designed to produce the improvement that I have described from the beginning of the next Session. Our approach turns on providing an

  769
  expanded role for the Scottish Grand Committee: in effect, we would be creating for it a mini-Order Paper, modelled, in many respects, on the procedures of the House.
  The Committee will be able to conduct general debates and debates on Second Reading of Bills, as now. In addition, it will have the opportunity for a question time; the opportunity to hear statements and take evidence from Scottish Office Ministers, including, where appropriate, those who sit in the other place; the opportunity to consider statutory instruments relating to Scotland; and the opportunity to have short Adjournment debates. We are also proposing a new procedure—unique to the Grand Committee—for short debates, with short speeches, on particular subjects raised by Scottish Members.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: New Standing Order D, entitled "Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)", states:
  "The chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee may permit a Scottish Office Minister or a Scottish law officer, whether or not a member of the committee, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him".
  How much prior notice must be given to the Chairman?
  Mr. Lang: Clearly, sufficient prior notice would be required before a Committee sitting took place as a result of a motion on the Order Paper, unless such notice had already been tabled in a sessional order or an order that had laid down the precise dates throughout a particular term of the Session. The point of the exercise is to act by consent and agreement across the Floor of the House, so the usual channels would be involved in negotiating precise details.
  The Standing Orders provide a framework within which a calendar can be laid out at the beginning of each Session—or, more likely, each term. That might set out the dates of meetings in Scotland and at Westminster and identify those meetings at which questions, short debates and general debates are to be taken. The objective would be to achieve, by agreement through the usual channels, a satisfactory pattern of business that avoided difficult clashes with the other parliamentary demands on hon. Members' time. A calendar of that sort should ensure that days available for general debates in the Scottish Grand Committee were deployed to best advantage.
  Our key change from the present arrangements would be the replacement of the present pattern of up to six estimates days and up to six matter days by provision for up to 12 general debates. It has been clear for some time that the present distinction between estimates debates and matter days debates is largely artificial. Both are in effect general debates on issues of current concern.
  In addition, the present arrangements have led to difficulties and uncertainties over timetabling, which has created problems. That has been a particular feature of the estimates debates, which have traditionally tended to be bunched together in late June and early July. Those debates are at the discretion and disposal of the Opposition, who, for whatever reason, have not had full advantage of them in recent years. The minority parties have been particularly disadvantaged in that regard.
  It is against that background that we propose the move to up to 12 general debates, to take place on substantive motions for the Adjournment, as provided under new Standing Order G. Of those general debates, four will be at the disposal of Her Majesty's Opposition, and one each
  770
  would go to the two next largest Opposition parties in Scotland, provided that they have not fewer than three hon. Members. In providing for days to be available in that way, we are following the principles that relate to Opposition days in the House, which work successfully.
  I envisage that some of the general debates will be on matters that arise regularly: the "hardy perennials", such as public expenditure in Scotland. The timing of those debates and the way in which they count against each party's allocation of time would, as for other aspects of our proposals, be settled by agreement through the usual channels.
  I do not propose to dwell at length on the technical details of the new arrangements. There has been ample opportunity for consultation with the Opposition parties, and the text of the Standing Orders, together with a detailed explanatory note, has been available in the House of Commons Library since 10 February.
  The intention of the new procedures is not to displace the Second Reading of major Bills from the Floor of the House, but to provide an alternative route that may be more appropriate for measures such as law reform Bills, which are often squeezed out at present. The intention is also, in certain circumstances, to enable private Members Bills relating exclusively to Scotland to have a proper Second Reading debate.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State is aware that a Bill to enact many of the recommendations of various reports on legislation affecting children in Scotland would enjoy considerable cross-party support and might lend itself to some of the procedures that he is suggesting. Can we expect such a long-overdue measure in the next Session?
  Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but I note what he says, and I take from that his party's willingness to contemplate the Second Reading of such a Bill in those circumstances.
  In drafting the Standing Orders, the opportunity has been taken to simplify some of the complex and confusing procedures relating to the reference of business to the Scottish Grand Committee, and to the handling of Bills that have a Second Reading there. Those are explained in more detail in the companion to the Standing Orders, which has been in the Library since February, and I am sure that the procedures will be found to be simpler and more effective.
  Overall, the proposed changes will contribute to making the Scottish Grand Committee a more effective forum for debate.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Although the Scottish Grand Committee may well become an effective forum for debate, can the Secretary of State explain how on earth that will extend democracy in Scotland? What is the use of having another talking shop if the Scottish Grand Committee will not have an effective vote on the principle of legislation? Surely one cannot have credible democratic scrutiny and accountability if one cannot vote.
  Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that democracy is confined to voting, he does not understand what democracy is all about. It happens to be quite a lot about debating and talking. The word "Parliament" derives from the French word "paler".

  771
  It may be appropriate to say a word about what I envisage for the Committee's sittings in Scotland. I think that areas other than Edinburgh should occasionally have the opportunity to host the Committee's meetings. I have asked my officials to provide assistance to the House authorities, who are ultimately responsible for making arrangements for sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee, to identify suitable premises.
  I should also mention briefly the other changes to the Standing Orders proposed tonight. The main one is the amendment—
  Sir David Steel: Does the Secretary of State recognise that if the Scottish Grand Committee goes on tour, it is even more important that we have proper notice of the meetings of the Committee? One of the greatest criticisms over the years has been of the idea that Members of Parliament are sitting around with free Tuesday and Thursday mornings waiting for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet. That is not true. Notice has been lamentable, especially this Session.
  Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member. I recall that, when I was the Scottish Whip many years ago, that was a complaint he had then, and he still has it now; he has been consistent in the matter. I am happy now to be able to meet his concern by bringing forward proposals that will give him precisely the predictability he seeks. Except in the case of occasional statements, which may have to be made at relatively short notice, the programme will be laid down well in advance.
  I refer especially to the amendment to Standing Order No. 91, which deals with Special Standing Committees. It will enable Special Standing Committees on Scottish Bills to meet in Scotland for the three sittings of oral evidence for which the Standing Order provides.
  As I have said, I believe that the changes will provide a fuller opportunity for Scottish affairs to be debated in a Scottish context, although at the same time fully within the framework of the procedures of this House and the existing constitutional arrangements, which have served Scotland well. I commend them to the House.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: The amendments to the Standing Orders derive, as the Prime Minister said, from the exercise that has become, he claimed, "popularly known"—I believe unpopularly named—as the "taking stock" exercise. It was embarked on by the Prime Minister in response to widespread public concern in Scotland about the fact that, in the 1992 general election, 75 per cent. of the people voted for parties in Scotland calling for one form of constitutional change or another and only 25 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Conservative party—a party that was pledged and committed to making no serious change in the constitutional arrangements relating to Scotland inside the United Kingdom. That left a serious problem of credibility for the Government—a problem that remains.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that everyone who voted for his party, for the Liberal Democrats or for the Scottish National party voted exclusively and solely for constitutional change?
  Mr. Robertson: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that they voted for those three parties, and that it was integral to the programme of those parties that there would be constitutional change and that there would be a Scottish Parliament. It is a bit rich of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to say that. Shortly after the general election, he was appointed vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland. Its support went from 25 per cent. of the electorate in the general election to 2.3 per cent. of the electorate in the Monklands, East by-election two weeks ago in which the hon. Gentleman played a starring role. The hon. Gentleman is not in much of a position to speak as he does here.
  Mr. Salmond: I hope to be helpful to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I was interested in the intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). Is the hon. Member for Hamilton aware that, in the most recent opinion poll that tested these matters, no fewer than 51 per cent. of Conservative supporters were in favour of some form of constitutional change? Admittedly, it was a very small sample.
  Mr. Robertson: I find myself in the astonishing position of thanking the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for an intervention. I know that he has problems of his own inside his party and that may be why he is being helpful on this occasion. I notice that Mr. Jim Sillars, the former Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Govan, said that the result in Monklands, East was a protest vote. He continued:
  "anyone who denies that is denying reality, so in a sense it almost didn't count."
  However, I still welcome the comment of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. In that opinion poll, 48 per cent. of those who said that they supported the Scottish National party supported a Scottish Parliament inside the United Kingdom, which is the policy of the Labour party. The party of government had at that point a serious problem of credibility and sought to address it through a taking-stock exercise.
  Mr. Bill Walker: If a future Labour Government did not have a majority of seats in England and did not have a substantial vote of support in England in percentage terms, as the hon. Gentleman has quoted, does that mean that a future Labour Government would make no constitutional changes affecting England?
  Mr. Home Robertson: The cheque is in the post.
  Mr. Robertson: That is not an expensive question at all. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if, in the next general election, the Labour party puts forward a prospectus calling for a Parliament in Scotland, an Assembly in Wales and, ultimately, regional assemblies throughout England, we shall pursue that prospectus because we believe in decentralisation in the United Kingdom. The reality of the vote in 1992 was that 75 per cent. of the population—convincing by any standards—voted for parties which called for major constitutional change, yet we were faced with a Government who said that the answer to that was no change at all.
  I recall that in March, in a profile of the Secretary of State for Scotland in The Guardian, he acknowledged the dilemma that he faced. He acknowledged that he led a party in Scotland which did not have a majority, as part of a Government elected by United Kingdom figures. He said

  773
  that that had led him to deal with problems with a little circumspection. Of course, the difficulty is that there is precious little circumspection in any of the policies that the Government are now following.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I have given way enough in this brief debate. Welcome though visitors to the debate are, I should move forward.
  In the light of that problem of credibility, in the light of that result in 1992, the new Standing Orders are a pathetic and totally inadequate response—
  Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has just referred to visitors in the Chamber. Is not this indeed the Parliament of the United Kingdom? Can you confirm that there are absolutely no visitors in the Chamber tonight?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Every hon. Member here is a democratically elected Member of this House. All hon. Members have a right to speak in the House and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman brought that point of order to my attention.
  Mr. Robertson: I agree with you, Madam Speaker. However, I do not think that the use of the word "visitors", or even of the word "passengers" could be possibly ruled out of order. I have never been one to say that anybody should be denied the right to speak, but hon. Gentlemen who are coming to such debates for the first time do not have a proprietorial right to intervene on any speech that happens to be made, however much respect I have for the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who may have had a greater interest in the previous debate.
  The new Standing Orders are pathetic and a totally inadequate response to the overwhelming public demand for a directly elected Scottish Parliament in Scotland. That is what is wanted, that is what is needed and that is what the people of Scotland have repeatedly asked for. The Secretary of State's opening speech underlined the need for that Parliament by describing the new powers which have come to him as a result of the exercise. He has taken upon himself responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council. He has taken upon himself the powers over training policy and the way in which that is to be integrated into industrial policy. He has taken upon himself the control of university finance in Scotland. The panoply of powers controlled directly by the Secretary of State for Scotland has increased dramatically and the only accountability that we are being offered is through the new Standing Orders.
  The Standing Orders in no way remove the obligation to look much more radically at what the people of Scotland want, especially in the light of the further collapse of Conservative support from 25 per cent. at the previous general election to under 14 per cent. in the regional council elections and in the European elections. Let us not overlook the fact that Conservative support in the most recent by-election dropped to a mere 2.3 per cent., the smallest proportion and the lowest absolute vote scored by the Conservative party since, I believe, 1874. Surely Conservative Members should be concerned about that. Conservative Members must regard 1992 as the halcyon
  774
  days when their party was achieving a 25 per cent. share of the vote. No doubt they think back to that time with considerable nostalgia.
  The proposals before us will improve the handling of Scottish parliamentary business and, therefore, are to be welcomed. There will be greater opportunities to question Ministers. We shall be able to cross-examine Ministers in the other place. These measures constitute a small but valuable step forward. Other improvements are the ideas of structured and timetabled Grand Committee debates on pre-determined issues, Adjournment debates and Special Standing Committees in the context of specific Scottish Bills. I welcome those concepts and look forward to the negotiations that will take place between all the parties to try to establish a timetable and a framework that will be to the convenience of us all. It is not just the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who has now left the Chamber, who has been inconvenienced by the way in which previous debates were arranged.
  Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the representation of Scottish Labour Members this evening—about 20 per cent.—is representative of the attendance that we might expect at future Scottish Grand Committees? That would be in line with the most recent Scottish Grand Committee, which was held at Edinburgh, when Labour attendance was poor.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should put the matter to the test at a Scottish Parliament in which real legislative powers are vested. That would be the ultimate test. The proposals before us represent only a small move forward, but one which I am willing to welcome. They do not, however, take us anywhere near what the Scottish people want and deserve.
  Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene, whether he describes me as a visitor or a passenger.
  It is a legitimate English interest to explore a little further what the Labour party means by a Scottish Parliament. If it means that a Scottish Parliament will, for example, be debating and deciding upon Scottish education or Scottish health, we in England, much as we shall miss the representation from Scotland, which takes such an interested part in our debates on such large matters, will be unwilling to hear Scots debating matters here that we are not allowed to debate in Scotland.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman comes from Kent, yet another part of the country which voted Labour in the European elections. I am sure that that is part of his interest in the wider debates that are taking place here.
  We do not have a neat arrangement in the United Kingdom. We do not have something that would easily be described in the neat checks and balances of a written constitution. There are obvious problems. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent is sitting behind the Secretary of State for Scotland, who exercises huge powers over specifically Scottish legislation. As has been said, the Government are in the process of ramming through a measure to reorganise Scottish local government. The Bill, in all its manifestation, is bitterly unpopular in Scotland. That is one of the reasons for the Conservative party being so unpopular north of the border. It is dropping down almost out of sight in electoral terms. The Secretary of

  775
  State is able to proceed, however, because a majority of Members come from south of the border. Such is the nature of the United Kingdom.
  The creation of a Scottish Parliament with accountability for the decisions taken on Scottish legislation, with the involvement of the Scottish people, would produce yet another facet of the developing union that the Government talk about with such great pride. I believe that such a Parliament would strengthen that union. If the Secretary of State examined the proposal in greater detail, I believe that he, too, would welcome it.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I was moving to a lengthy point, but in the light of that, I will accept an intervention.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if a Scottish institution produces Scottish legislation that affects England and all other parts of the kingdom in respect of road traffic, safety or health, we shall be creating a schismatic situation which will destroy the Union, not strengthen it?
  Mr. Robertson: I entirely disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I remind him of an incident a couple of months ago when he attempted to speak in the First Scottish Standing Committee which was considering sheriff courts fees. A conspiracy of Whips and others prevented the hon. and learned Gentleman, as a Scottish Member, even expressing a view in that Committee. At the end of that Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed anger and disgust at the fact that a measure had been pushed through without a Scottish Conservative voice being heard. That is an anomaly which the hon. and learned Gentleman is apparently willing to swallow. Therefore, I do not see why he should not be willing to accept that the democratic will of the Scottish people, through a Parliament inside the United Kingdom, should have just as much validity as what he swallowed on that occasion.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give wavy?
  Mr. Robertson: No, I cannot give way at this point. It would be unfair to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and to others if I were to accept this as a dialogue between Members rather than a brief speech.
  Labour, and I personally, have consistently argued for the early implementation of these changes to the Standing Orders. Agreement was reached between the parties in the House at the end of 1993 and I have sought, through correspondence and conversation, to make the Government introduce the changes earlier. By contrast, the Secretary of State has done his level best to hold them up. Only after endless delays and excuses about so-called non co-operation is he now grudgingly bringing the changes before the House.
  People will remember the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). He said that democracy is about more than voting. That is very true when the Conservative party has dropped right out of the scale of voting in Scotland and has virtually no support among the population of Scotland.
  The Government behave without circumspection but with complete arrogance, and that behaviour will consign
  776
  them to being almost permanently on the margin of Scottish politics. As the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said, this is a Government
  "in office but not in power."—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 285.]
  They have lost, decisively, comprehensively and perhaps permanently, the support of the Scottish people.
  Like the old, near-senile rulers of the old eastern European regimes, the Government strut around the Scottish stage without backing, consent or popular authority. Just like those relics of the past, when they cannot win elections, they blame the electorate. Apparently the electors got it wrong. They have been confused, bemused or taken down blind alleys by other political parties. The Government never admit that they have got it wrong and that they should change.
  Just like the Brezhnevs of the past, manipulating small families and huge families, the Scottish Tory family simply takes those who have lost elections and places them on the quangos that are increasingly running Scotland. Scarcely a quango, large and powerful or small, is complete without a failed Tory candidate and now, of course, there is no other version. Just like the eastern European relics, they will be consigned to the museum.
  Let me be constructive as well as critical of the Government. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has rightly pointed out, we have missed out and the people, and especially the vulnerable children, of Scotland have missed out because no comprehensive legislation has been introduced in Scotland to mirror the Children Act 1989, which applies to England and Wales.
  The Government's promised Children's Bill should have appeared last year, but it was pushed aside for local government reorganisation. Scotland is already five years behind England in its reform of laws for children. The Government, however, are apparently still arguing that there will be no time for the Bill even in the next Session. That is scandalous. No attempt has been made by Ministers of any variety to deny the stories about that which have appeared in the press. A Children's Bill that was properly drafted to ensure cross-party support could be referred to the new Scottish Grand Committee and to the new procedures that we will agree tonight. I therefore challenge the Secretary of State to choose the route of cross-party co-operation in the interests of Scotland's vulnerable children.
  The Opposition offer our support for such a Bill. The Government may put Scotland's children in second place to the gerrymandering of Scottish local government, but the Labour party puts children first. That is why we make it clear tonight that we shall give our co-operation to such a Bill being considered in Scottish Grand Committee, thereby avoiding the pre-empting of precious parliamentary time.
  There will be other opportunities to use those channels to raise issues that we have been unable to raise under the present procedures. We shall be able to consider the Rosyth naval base and the betrayal of its work force. They were given promises repeatedly but now, apparently, they are to be withdrawn, cavalierly and brazenly, by a Government who treat promises with absolutely no faith. The new procedures will also allow us, I hope, to interrogate, once again, Lord Fraser about the Fyfe-Peterken row. Perhaps we shall get closer to the truth than any Government statements up to now have allowed us to get. I notice that Lord Fraser does not even bother to attend Scottish

  777
  Question Time now to hear the answers to questions put about his Department. That will change, to the slight benefit of Scottish democracy.
  The tide of history will see the cosmetic changes offered as purely tinkering at a system that needs radical change. They are, and will be seen as, a superficial and unconvincing—although perhaps in the short term welcome—attempt to hide the depth of the centralisation that is sapping our national strength. A new Government are coming, who, with a Scottish Parliament as the first stage to a decentralised United Kingdom, will usher in a new and revived spirit of a vibrant, growing and democratic United Kingdom.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Given the strict time limit on the debate, I shall be brief. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will keep me to the point.
  I welcome the debate and the terms of the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is worth recalling briefly, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) did, the background to the debate on our standing orders.
  In the days immediately preceding the general election of April 1992, in Scotland we were told almost daily by the media and by each of the Opposition parties that the Scottish Conservative party was facing electoral annihilation. We were told that we would be down to two Members of Parliament, if we were lucky, and that more than 50 per cent. of our fellow Scots wanted outright secession from the Union. We were told that, frankly, the days of the Union were numbered. We were also told that to be an unionist was to have a death wish and that what our opponents called and still call the status quo could not last. We read that by our perceived intransigence it was we unionists who were threatening the Union.
  Without doubt there is some truth in the thinking that argued that rigid, dogmatic, almost doctrinaire adherence to the status quo was and, indeed, is dangerous. As the party of the Union, it falls uniquely to us to fight for and preserve the historic bond between our two countries. If we do not, no one else will. It is up to us to make the Union positive and relevant and to make it work. My right hon. Friend moved his motion in that spirit.
  A valid and proper question that must be asked is whether to be a unionist today is to be a defender of the constitutional status quo and to say no—no to change, no to any change, no to every change. I remind the House of the fate of the last Member in this House who said, "No, no, no."
  The Union of 1707 has changed and will change. To survive, it must change. That is what we are debating tonight. Unionism is not blind, unquestioning adherence to present constitutional arrangements.
  Mr. Salmond: If I catch the hon. Gentleman's drift correctly, the former right hon. Member whom he mentioned said "Yes" to the Rosyth naval base. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about that?
  Mr. Robertson: I shall stick to the issue in question. The hon. Gentleman may be able to fit that matter into his own speech.
  778
  By its very nature, the status quo must change. The Union that we have today is not that of 1707. How could it possibly be? It has constantly adapted to changing circumstances, moved with the times and been flexible. The partnership between Scotland and England is not stagnant but dynamic, and my right hon. Friend is asking the House to embrace that dynamism. Freeing the Scottish Grand Committee from the shackles of meeting only in Edinburgh and London, giving it new powers and enhancing its role is the next step in the Union's evolution.
  To answer the question that I posed, Conservative Members are not frightened of change, but we differ from each of the Opposition parties—which, to be fair, also offer change—because to any change, however great or small, we always apply a fundamental, non-negotiable criterion: will it strengthen or weaken the Union? If it passes that test and truly enhances the Union, we shall be found right behind it, battling hard for it. But if it fails the test and weakens or threatens the Union, we shall fight it to the end with every conviction and every sinew of our being.
  That is why we oppose the plans proposed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and all the Opposition parties and support my right hon. Friend. The Scottish National party wants to destroy the United Kingdom and consign it to history. At least that is honest. The Liberal Democrat and Labour parties offer a half-way house which is untenable in the long term and offers nothing but chaos, instability and misery in the short term.
  It is hard to see how a directly elected tax-raising Assembly could ever pass the test of whether the Union would be strengthened. The one offered by the constitutional convention certainly does not: under it, Scotland would become the most highly taxed part of the kingdom, driving out jobs and investment. Political tensions would be great when dilemmas like the West Lothian question became real issues rather than mere academic debating points. The regional imbalances within Scotland would result in an Assembly dominated by central Scotland, with no sensitivity to the north and north-east. Policies would be tailored for the central belt and paid for by Grampian.
  We oppose the unilateral devolution on offer, not because it comes either from the convention or our opponents, but because in the short term it threatens the Union and in the long term will destroy it completely.
  As a Unionist party, we have never been frightened to question how and if the Union is working, and to look at its failings as well as its strengths. The changes envisaged by my right hon. Friend are fundamental, radical and visionary—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may scoff and sneer, but what do they have to fear in allowing the Grand Committee to meet in Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Inverness or their own constituencies? Are they concerned that their constituents might see Scottish Members debating Scottish matters which affect them? Are they frightened that the Grand Committee will take on a new relevance, or that their constituents might demand their attendance and—horror of horrors—their participation?
  Mr. Kynoch: The Scottish people should see the Opposition Benches now, with only six Labour Members present. Is that not representative of Labour Members' attitude to the future of Scotland and their interest in what goes on in this place?
  Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend raises a valid point. As he said earlier, the last time the Grand Committee met in Edinburgh only half the Scottish parliamentary Labour party bothered to turn up. Do the Opposition parties oppose what we are doing tonight because they fear change themselves? Do they believe that we are about to deny them our greatest weapon?
  Mr. George Robertson: I hate to interrupt such a polished speech, but the hon. Gentleman has clearly failed to spot the fact that we support these changes today. I know that that might cut out a large chunk of his speech, but he should change it if he does not want to look absolutely ludicrous tomorrow.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman may support what we are doing tonight, but has he heard his colleagues jeering in the background? Has he seen them shaking their heads at what he said or what my right hon. Friend said? If they are supportive, why is there only a one-line whip? Why are they not whipped in the House to vote for the measures?
  Is it simply that Opposition Members know that we are right and agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor, when he wrote in The Herald on 3 May 1993:
  "I think we are making a great mistake if we just assume there is huge enthusiasm for home rule in Scotland."
  In conclusion, Scotland's place is as a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom. Only the Conservative party is committed to that. The Scottish people have shown time and again that they do not want to see the saltire ripped from the Union flag. The Union has endured because it can change and it will endure. It is dynamic and has changed, and it will change again. These reforms are an important staging post in its history. In time, if not tonight, they will be seen as just as important as previous reforms, such as the creation of the Scottish Office and the position of the Secretary of State, and the setting up of the Select Committee—as important as the creation of the Grand Committee itself. As a unionist, I have no hesitation in supporting the reforms and commending them to the House.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: We have just listened to what I suspect is the authentic voice of Tory unionism. If what we are being asked to support this evening is a measure of dynamism and vision, heaven help Scotland. I accept that they are pragmatic measures and measures which we, indeed, will support, but they fall far short of anything that will address the malaise within the Union arrangements.
  When I heard the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) say that, if anything threatened the Union, he would use every sinew—or words to that effect—to defend the Union at all costs, I am sure that those are the sort of words that were spoken from the Tory Benches in 1912 and 1914 when Liberal Governments tried to introduce measures for the government of Ireland. Of course, it was that type of attitude that led to the one event that we have had in this century where the Union broke up. The Conservatives achieved the break-up of the Union by their unwillingness to endorse and embrace some genuinely and visionary measures which would sort out the government of this country.
  780
  When people talk about anomalies that might arise, I do not recall, during the years before Stormont was abolished, that many Tory Members objected to the fact that they had the support of Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament, albeit that matters affecting the domestic affairs of Ulster were dealt with at Stormont and Ulster Members were still free to debate, come to this House and vote on all other measures affecting other parts of the United Kingdom. That was an anomaly. It is an anomaly which would be cured by federalism. However, it is clearly an anomaly which Tory Members were prepared to accept as long as it suited their own book.
  Both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) have referred to the taking-stock exercise which, after a long gestation period, produced a mouse. When one looks at what has happened in the interim, even if the announcement of taking stock was a disappointment, the subsequent events have been something of a disappointment, too. We are told, and we now know, that there are facilities for people to make local telephone calls to ask the Scottish Office questions. What is the point of asking questions if one gets answers which reflect the minority view within Scotland?
  We also heard from the Secretary of State—indeed, he paraded it as one of the great achievements—that he has responsibility for training in Scotland. As I recall, paragraph 7.5 of the document "Taking Stock" says that training will be done within the framework of overall strategic priorities, initiatives and policies developed by the Secretary of State for Employment in consultation with colleagues and collectively agreed.
  As one who is always willing to give credit where credit is due, I acknowledge that on 7 February this year the Secretary of State made an important announcement that he heralded as a further step in developing the policies set out in the White Paper "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good". On that day, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), he proudly announced that, with the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, formal responsibility for the administration of treasure trove in Scotland had been transferred from the Treasury to the Scottish Office.
  The body politic in Scotland is still quaking after the dynamic, visionary and radical decision made that day. If they are still looking for the treasure, it is not to be found in the White Paper—
  Mr. Kynoch: If the people of Scotland followed the hon. Gentleman's recommendation of a Scottish Parliament, with all the implications that that might have for increased taxation, would they regard being probably the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom as treasure?
  Mr. Wallace: I have never accepted the proposition that a Parliament would necessarily lead to higher rates of tax. Taxation powers are important if any legislative body is to have some means of fiscal discipline—[Interruption.] As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) reminds me, that was precisely Lord Home's argument before the 1979 referendum.
  The power to raise taxation also involves the power to lower it. If Scotland wanted to gain some competitive advantage, it might reduce taxes—a possibility that Tory Members refuse to countenance because it undermines their other arguments.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Wallace: No. I am trying to make some progress.
  We were told in the document that the Government's objective was to find ways of handling Commons business relating to Scotland, including legislation
  "which maximises the involvement of Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies and increases the responsiveness of the system to Scottish considerations."
  In this Session, there have been two important measures affecting the criminal law of Scotland and police powers. They were essentially English Bills to which Scottish provisions had been tagged on. On the Committees that scrutinised those Bills, only two Scottish Members were able to serve—yet one of them concerned an important issue for Scotland about which we have all received many letters: aggravated trespass. When the Scottish aspects of that issue were debated, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) rose, kept his head down, and for three minutes read out a truncated version of his brief. Then he sat down. So much for sensitivity to Scottish considerations.
  Such Scottish legislation as there is we find often tagged on to whatever will go for England and Wales. A Scottish Parliament would not have defaulted on introducing measures to safeguard and to implement many of the recommendations and reports that have emerged on the welfare of children in Scotland. That was a serious omission from this year's legislative programme. We hope that reports that there will be no such legislation next year either are wrong.
  If the Government introduce a Children Bill for Scotland in the next Session, it will receive the support of both sides of the House. We shall of course want to look at the details; a Special Standing Committee of the type to which the Secretary of State referred would offer an ideal mechanism for scrutiny of the legal niceties involved in the welfare of children. I greatly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take encouragement from this debate to introduce such a Bill soon.
  Although we welcome the new Standing Orders, I note that there will be no real votes in the Grand Committee. No matter what we debate, or how passionately we debate it, we will ultimately only be debating whether to adjourn or whether to report to the House that we have considered an issue. I cannot wait for the touring circus to turn up in the old Parliament hall in St. Andrew's, where we will spend two and a half hours passionately debating the economy of Scotland, only at the end to vote on whether to adjourn. If that is the kind of picture that Scottish people will see on location about how Scotland is governed, they will not draw the conclusions that Conservative Members expect people to draw.
  I welcome the fact that there will be additional time for questions. It is frustrating to us all that Scottish Question Time occurs only once in every four parliamentary weeks. On a whole range of subjects our English colleagues have an opportunity to question individual Ministers, but we have to pick and choose between all those subjects on one occasion. We will have an opportunity to question the Minister of State in another place and the Law Officers. The last time on which there was a separate period to put oral questions to the Law Officers was in 1987. Since then, there has been the Lockerbie air disaster and Piper Alpha and other important issues which intimately involved the
  782
  actions of Law Officers. But we have not had a proper opportunity here to ask questions on those matters, and this proposal is particularly welcome.
  I warmed to the Secretary of State's suggestion that we might get a calendar for timetabling Scottish Grand Committee meetings. We shall certainly do our best to co-operate to try to achieve that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has said, we are not all sitting with empty diaries to slot in meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee at four days' notice.
  The distribution of debates is six for the Government, four for the principal Opposition and one each for the other Scottish Opposition parties. That is not exactly proportional representation, but it is probably better than the current arrangement and it is at least a start.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Perhaps I may intervene to allow my hon. Friend to replenish his supply of water. He mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Does he recall that in, I think, 1965, shortly after he was elected, my rt hon. Friend wrote a pamphlet for the Scottish Liberal party, as it was then, entitled "Out of Control"? That pamphlet contained practically all the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Wallace: I do not have a contemporaneous recollection of that: I was only 11 at the time. However, I subsequently read the pamphlet, which is very good. I am sure that the Secretary of State must have had it very much in mind when he presented his proposals. In 1912 Mr. Asquith said that the centre was congested and that it was time to start divesting some of the congestion.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) remembers that.
  Mr. Wallace: I do not accuse my hon. Friend of remembering Mr. Asquith. I recall a pamphlet written by the present Secretary of State in the late 1970s which seemed to favour the concept of some sort of devolution. The Secretary of State shakes his head. Perhaps we can look in the files to see whether we can find it. It obviously did not make the same impact upon me as the one written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. However, I remember that the Secretary of State for Defence made impassioned speeches in the House in favour of Scottish devolution in the 1970s. He may still hold that view but feels that he cannot say so.
  Whether we can have ad hoc statements or whether they can be made only on days when there is a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee is not entirely clear. For example, statements on student grants or on other matters which affect the whole of the United Kingdom are invariably made by English Ministers and Scottish Members do not have an opportunity to ask detailed Scottish questions. It is not clear whether statements on Scottish matters could be made at relatively short notice in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  The doubt is that the proposed legislation amounts to anything like that which is necessary to address the needs of the Scottish people. Our party is unequivocally a party of home rule because we believe that that offers the Scottish people the opportunity to elect those who will determine Scotland's political priorities for its domestic

  783
  affairs while leaving matters such as defence, foreign affairs and macro-economic policy to what we see as the federal Parliament. That is the only way in which the Union can be preserved. Many aspects of the Union are worth preserving, but the one way to destroy it is to make only small adjustments to it or none at all.
  As I said, Mr. Asquith thought that the centre was congested in 1912. It is even more congested now, and probably facing gridlock. It would be for the better government of Scotland to divest this place of many of its responsibilities. The measure goes a short way towards improving the government of Scotland, and that is why we support it. But people are kidding themselves if they think that it addresses the central question.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I shall be brief, which I am sure all hon. Members will be glad to hear.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on presenting the new Standing Orders and I fully identify with them. I welcome the support generally expressed by Opposition Members, although was disappointed with the negative approach of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He did not really deal with the issues, but instead began a tirade about home rule and a Scottish Parliament. He rehearsed the argument that 75 per cent. of Scottish electors voted for those who wanted major constitutional change. He ignored the fact that they actually voted for the retention of the Union. That is an important point.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government lost the last election in Scotland. In fact, they won it in the Union and on the basis—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamilton should not snigger. He represents a party of the Union, so he should respect the wishes of all the citizens of the Union. The Conservative party stood adamantly against the establishment of a separate Scottish Parliament. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman likes it, the fact is that the Conservative party won the argument throughout the United Kingdom. There will not be a separate Scottish Parliament under a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend's argument is strengthened by the fact that, throughout the last general election campaign, Kent was honoured by a whole series of Scottish Members of Parliament preaching the Labour cause. Any suggestion that they were viewed as either visitors or passengers would have been ridiculous.
  Mr. Gallie: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, if senior members of the Labour party with Scottish seats had not gone to Kent to speak on behalf of the Labour party, there would have been few other senior members available to do so because the party depends so heavily on the Scottish input.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to taxation under a Scottish Parliament. He suggested that it would cut taxes in Scotland. That could be achieved in one of two ways—either Scots would pay less in national taxation or a Scottish Parliament would draw in cash from Scottish local authorities and therefore reduce their cash base—
  Mr. Henry McLeish: Rubbish.
  Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman want to defend the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland? Can he suggest another way that a Scottish Parliament could cut taxes in Scotland? If so, perhaps he would get to his feet and tell us.
  Mr. Kynoch: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gallie: No; I want to hear from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish).
  Mr. McLeish: Where has the hon. Gentleman found a reference to funds for a Scottish Parliament coming from local authorities?
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that a Scottish Parliament would reduce taxes for the Scottish people. I am suggesting two means of achieving that. I am not suggesting that it is written anywhere else.
  Mr. Wallace: How many election speeches has the hon. Gentleman made arguing that lower taxation could increase accrued revenue and that that could be better for the economy?
  Mr. Gallie: Many, and I firmly believe that. I argued the case in national terms, but the hon. Gentleman is suggesting some sort of two-tier national taxation system in Scotland, which is totally irrational. The hon. Gentleman's comments earlier this evening do not hold water.
  Mr. Kynoch: Does my hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has finally admitted tonight that the Liberal Democrats are firmly for home rule? The hon. Gentleman was very cagey about the fact that that would mean increased taxation in Scotland. Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, at the last general election, the message was given loud and clear to the Liberal Democrats that my part of the world would not tolerate being governed by the central belt or a higher rate of taxation with Liberal Democrat or Labour policies in Scotland?
  Mr. Gallie: I do not know what the Liberal Democrats were saying in Kincardine and Deeside, but almost certainly something different was said in Ayr. That is the nature of the Liberal Democrat party.
  I envisage that the new Scottish Grand Committee will reflect the on-going activities of Parliament at Westminster. It will do so with the introduction of Question Time, which I much welcome. Also, my hon. Friend the Minister for State will be able to participate in the Scottish Grand Committee in future, which is most important. I welcome also, together with Opposition Members, the participation of the Law Officers.
  I welcome the introduction of short debates and the time limit of five minutes on introductory speeches, including by Ministers, and of three minutes on subsequent speeches, which will produce sharp and interesting debates. I welcome also the provision for mobility. However, I recall the poor attendance at Scottish Grand Committees in the past in Edinburgh—particularly at the last meeting on local government, which was attended by only a few Opposition Members. That meeting was not on a Tuesday or Thursday but on a Monday, when Scottish Members traditionally stay in Scotland. If the Committee meets on Tuesdays or

  785
  Thursdays in different towns in Scotland, it will create many difficulties for hon. Members who want to participate in debates on wider issues.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to local government changes. I bear in mind the criticisms levelled against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers—
  Mr. McLeish: Over raising tax levels?
  Mr. Gallie: We have no intention of doing that. Our aim is to reduce taxes, not increase them—but that is another matter.
  Opposition Members have criticised the speed at which local government reform will be introduced in Scotland. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I hear positive acknowledgement of that. I must express puzzlement, therefore, at the words of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who told the United Kingdom that if a Labour Government are ever elected, they will introduce a Parliament in Scotland in the first 12 months. Given the criticism from Labour Members, that is most surprising.
  Mr. McLeish: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an important difference? Unlike the local government reorganisation Bill—on which there is no consensus, and which is half-baked and not wanted—a Scottish Parliament will be supported by the overwhelming majority of Scots, and we will implement it at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Mr. Gallie: I do not accept that the overwhelming majority endorse such a move.
  The hon. Gentleman, however, has provided me with a means of winding up my speech. He referred to the Government's intention in regard to local government reforms, which was a Conservative party manifesto pledge. We promised single-tier authorities; we are about to deliver them. At the same time, many Conservative Members promised that, if elected, they would move towards the re-establishment of a Scottish Select Committee. That has happened, and I believe that it has provided many valuable means of analysing business in Scotland recently. Above all, Conservative Members promised a review of the Scottish Grand Committee and its involvement. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for living up to those manifesto pledges, and for coming clean with these excellent proposals.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I address some factual questions to the Leader of the House? New Standing Order D, on page 4438 of the Order Paper, states:
  "The chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee may permit a Scottish Office Minister or a Scottish law officer, whether or not a member of the committee, to make a statement".
  Let us suppose that an hon. Member wanted a debate on Lockerbie. What would be the procedure? Would that hon. Member have to persuade whoever was the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee, and are we talking about the alternative Chairman who now exists?
  Paragraph (4) of new Standing Order D states:
  "A minister or law officer making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a member of the committee, may not do so from the body of the committee".
  What exactly does that mean, and to what extent would the
  786
  Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General be responsible? In what form could written questions then be put to him, as the responsible Minister?
  New Standing Order H(1)(d), on page 4440 of the Order Paper, states that it will be possible for the Scottish Grand Committee
  "to hold short debates under Standing Order C…on certain of the days so specified".
  How would those debates be chosen? If a Government did not want a debate on, for example, Lockerbie, would it not be easy to crowd out a request for one? What would be the rights of Back Benchers—in particular, those whose requests might not be supported by those on the Opposition Front Bench? Is there any provision to allow debates that have been requested but may not be wanted by those on either Front Bench? Both may take the view—quite legitimately—that there are other more important subjects to be debated. I am concerned about requests from Opposition Back Benchers and, indeed, from minority parties with minority opinions. What chance would those of us with minority opinions on, say, Lockerbie have of securing a debate?
  It is all very well to say, refer to Scottish Ministers and the Lord Advocate. In what circumstances could a Committee Chairman ask for the presence of a Minister in a United Kingdom Department? Let us again take the example of Lockerbie. I questioned the Prime Minister about the lead Department involved. The answer was that in certain circumstances it was the Crown Office, but that the Foreign Office dealt with other aspects of the Lockerbie crime—for such it was. Can the Scottish Grand Committee ask for a Foreign Office Minister to deal with Lockerbie? I had better not confine myself simply to Lockerbie. What about Rosyth? It might be very important to have a Defence or a Trade and Industry Minister deal with that.
  To what extent can the Scottish Grand Committee ask, in reasonable circumstances—as judged by the Chairman—for Ministers from Departments other than the Crown Office or the Scottish Office?
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I shall make no comment on the interesting questions raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), except to say that I have noticed from some of his recent interventions that he is growing increasingly sceptical of some of the institutions and procedures of the Union, which he once so strongly defended.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) interested me, but more for the extravagant use of hand gestures throughout his discourse. The Liberal Democrats seem to regard such gestures with great suspicion, as they are increasingly of the view that they may be directed at them.
  I was especially interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who said two things that are worth reflecting on. First, he said that the attendance of Conservative Members was very good. It is indeed quite spectacular. I notice seven out of the 11 Scottish Tories on the Conservative Benches. I put that down to the continuing contest to see who will inherit the poisoned chalice from the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he shakes off the mortal coil of being Secretary of State in the next week or so. After reading the Sunday

  787
  Post poll of his constituency, I advise him to devote as much time to constituency affairs as possible during the next couple of years.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South reminded us of his memorable address to this House after the regional elections, in which he assured us that, despite Conservatives falling like ninepins in the rest of Scotland, the Conservative vote was holding very firm in his constituency. I spent some time in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on European election day. I apologise for not giving him notice of that. I could not detect any great upsurge of interest in the Conservative party at the polling stations, despite the doubtless continuing inspirational leadership that he is giving the party in that area.
  It is very difficult for the Conservative party to gainsay the assertion that the collapse in its fortunes in Scotland during the 18 months since the "taking stock" was first announced—what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Ms Robertson) described as the halcyon days—has been anything other than dramatic.
  I remind the Secretary of State of what he said at the time, in May 1993:
  "We have, to use the vernacular, taken stock—and it's the opposition who are in the soup."
  I do not know if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is in the soup in Scotland, but the Conservative party certainly seems to be boiling in oil, given the collapse in support from the 26 per cent. that it obtained in the general election to 12 per cent. in the regional elections, 14 per cent. in the European election—the Conservatives officially quoted that as a great improvement in its fortunes—and to the 9 per cent. that was cited for Conservative party fortunes in the Gallup poll Scottish sample published last Friday.
  Political parties—my own included—have had low points in their fortunes at various times and have been as low as 9 per cent. In the late 1980s, the Social and Liberal Democrats reached such a low figure—
  Mr. Wallace: Lower than that.
  Mr. Salmond: I am informed that it was lower. I cannot, however, think of any party in government which has sunk so low in the estimation of the people on whose behalf it is governing. Even the Conservatives in Canada, en route to their near total wipeout in the Canadian elections, still obtained between 17 per cent. and 18 per cent. of the vote. It is unprecedented for a party in Government, and claiming a mandate, to be at 9 per cent. in the latest poll of the party affiliations of the Scottish people.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Hamilton in his reflections on the support for constitutional options. I heard what he said about the remaining amount of support for devolution in the ranks of the Scottish National party. I took the trouble to dig out the opinion poll to which I was referring, in The Scotsman on Wednesday 8 June. As far as I know, it is the most recent sounding of the feeling of the people of Scotland about the various constitutional options. I remember it well. I recollected, and can now confirm, that the front page was headed "Poll boost for independence". According to the sample, no fewer than 74 per cent. of SNP voters, 31 per cent. of Liberal Democrat voters, 49 per cent. of Labour voters and even 22 per cent. of Conservative voters agreed with the proposition that Scotland would be better off as an independent country
  788
  within a European context than as part of Britain. Overall, 48 per cent. of all voters agreed with the notion while 15 per cent. disagreed.
  On the straight constitutional question—given the three options of independence in Europe, a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom and the status quo—the hon. Member for Hamilton was right to note that support for independence among SNP voters was by no means unanimous. It had the support of 55 per cent. of SNP voters but, at the same time, only 51 per cent. of Labour voters agreed with Labour's policy of devolution and only 49 per cent. of Conservatives voters, in an admittedly small sample, agreed with the Conservative policy of maintaining the status quo. I have the figures here if the hon. Member for Hamilton would like to see them. According to this sample, support for independence in Europe was greater even than the exceptionally high levels of support currently recorded for the SNP.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is good at citing figures and quoting newspaper articles, but what does he have to say about his party's old slogan "Scotland Free in '93"?
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman knows that politics is a continuing process. I can promise him that at the next election I shall not campaign with the slogan, "We'll be in heaven in 1997." Nevertheless, I am extremely satisfied with the 33 per cent. level of support recorded by the SNP in the European elections last month. I should have been extremely disappointed if we had recorded the ridiculously low level of 14 per cent. recorded by the hon. Gentleman's party. Does the hon. Member for Hamilton wish to intervene?
  Mr. George Robertson: I certainly do, but I am unsure whether we are providing illumination by bandying around the results of opinion polls. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to the System 3 poll, which asked a precise question about the preferred constitutional arrangements. It found that 48 per cent. of SNP supporters favoured a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom.
  However, I also draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention what Mr. Jim Sillars is reported as saying in yesterday's edition of Scotland on Sunday:
  "I am not sure what the present SNP objective is. People will say: 'Of course it's independence,' but is it? Because if it's independence then you never miss an opportunity of using that word. So when a party uses the language of the Labour party—like 'strong Scottish parliament'—then I've got a question as to whether the objective is independence."
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is using our vocabulary because he knows that the bulk of those who might be inclined to support the SNP support a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom within Europe.
  Mr. Salmond: Perhaps Mr. Sillars had the misfortune to believe Labour party press statements about the Monklands by-election. I took the trouble to bring along the SNP by-election address because I had heard the hon. Member for Hamilton make a similar point before. I shall read it to him. Its fairly large headline is
  "The Scotland I want to see".
  Our candidate in Monklands argued:
  "I want Scotland to be equal with the other nations of Europe. To have our own Parliament which will give a Scottish solution to Scottish problems. With Independence, Scotland will be free to

  789
  choose her own government, rather than having a Tory government from Westminster foisted upon us. Then we will be able to vote in elections for any party of our choice."
  The address goes on to deal with benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds—a matter which the hon. Gentleman debated with us last Thursday—and pensions and argues why the concept of independence for Scotland should be favoured by the Scottish people. I should think that there are very few people in Scotland who do not now realise that the SNP stands for full national independence within a European context.
  I was, however, interested in the Sunday newspapers and especially in the remarks of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Mr. Hogg) who openly questioned the Labour party's commitment given by all three leadership candidates to enact devolution legislation in the first year of a Labour Government. I noticed that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) used the words "at the earliest possible opportunity" a few moments ago. I do not know whether he is—mediating—
  Mr. McLeish rose—
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make a few more points before allowing him to intervene. I heard him clearly say "at the earliest possible opportunity"—we can check the record.
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is mediating between the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and the leadership candidates of the Labour party. All I will say is that I found the matter fascinating, not so much for what the hon. Member Cumbernauld and Kilsyth said, although that was interesting in itself, but for the fact that he identified within the Labour party what he called "devolution sceptics"—opponents of devolution—who would cause enormous difficulties to the progress of a devolution Bill, as he said in a closely argued article. Is the hon. Member for Fife, Central aware who those people in the parliamentary Labour party are? Is he prepared to name them this evening?
  Mr. McLeish: Let me make it quite clear from the Labour Benches that we will legislate for a Scottish Parliament in the first year of a Labour Government. We shall succeed in that first year. Although everyone in the party is entitled to his or her opinions, we can give that cast-iron guarantee. More important, let me ask whether the Scottish National party will support Labour in its attempts to establish a Scottish Parliament in the first year of a Labour Government.
  Mr. George Robertson: If the Scottish National party is here.
  Mr. McLeish: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) says, if the Scottish National party is here.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should refer back to the Usher hall debate during the last election campaign, during which I was asked exactly the same question. I made it quite clear that, just as we shall support these minor changes tonight, the Scottish National party always operates in the interests of the Scottish people. The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely clear that we shall go into an election campaigning for independence for Scotland within Europe. That is the proposition that we shall put before the
  790
  Scottish people. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I shall be able to be reasonably clear that all the members of my party campaigning in that election will believe in our commitment.
  Clearly, I do not know whether there will be a special manifesto in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth at the next election or whether the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, that experienced member of the Labour party in Scotland—who is more experienced than the hon. Member for Fife, Central—will be given a special codicil to exempt him from the general policy. Alternatively, will disciplinary action be taken against the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth for not agreeing with this central tenet of Labour party policy?
  I believe that the argument tonight is about the "taking stock" reforms and about whether they can live up to the claim that was made by the Conservative party 18 months ago that the whole exercise was one involving listening to the Scottish people. More than any other single factor, the reason for the plummeting of the Conservative party's political fortunes in Scotland over that period has been the issue of Scottish water—and, in particular, the dramatic illustration in the Strathclyde water ballot of the fact that, far from there being an exercise involving listening to the views of the Scottish people, any excuse and any pretext would be regarded as sufficient opportunity to disregard the views that were being expressed.
  I remind the House that in a 71.5 per cent. poll, 1,194,667 people rejected the Government's plans to take water out of local authority control. A mere 33,956—2.8 per cent.—actually supported them. Despite all that, and despite that dramatic demonstration of will by the Scottish people in the Strathclyde region, the Government, far from living up to their promise to listen to the Scottish population, were apparently determined to cast those views aside.
  The real test of the proposals was alluded to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland when he made the distinction between being able to question, debate, ask and listen, and being able to decide. There is absolutely nothing in the procedures that gives the people of Scotland any opportunity to extend the decision-making ability of Scottish representatives, even over the simplest matters of Scottish life—even over areas on which there might be a consensus in Scotland.
  I looked through the records of the House and it was significant that I could not find a single piece of Scottish legislation whose progress the Government were willing to entrust to Scottish political representatives. Indeed, the only area in which I could find that there was a majority of Scottish Members—I think mistakenly—was the vote on 1 February when the hon. Member for Hamilton, in some sort of emotional spasm, decided to go into the Lobby with the Conservative party to back the powers of the House and the right of five Conservatives from English constituencies to dictate the progress of Scottish local government and the removal of water from local authorities. On no other issue can I find any consensus among even the unionist Scottish parties. Therein lies the reason why there is no decision-making power within the proposals which is to be entrusted to the Scottish Grand Committee, even in its reformed context.
  Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman uses the technique of constantly reiterating something which is simply not true. The Labour party voted that night with the

  791
  other Opposition parties, with the exception of the Scottish National party, to give the Chairman of the First Scottish Standing Committee the power to stop juvenile displays by the Scottish National party, in its attempts to block progress in that Committee. It had nothing whatever to do with the rights of five English Members of Parliament to be on that Committee. The SNP, as ever, decided that it would indulge in a publicity gimmick. Labour Members were not involved in that. We wanted to ensure that that Committee proceeded without a guillotine. The SNP did not. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would be accurate in what he tells the House and the outside world.
  Mr. Salmond: Yet again, I have touched a raw nerve with the hon. Gentleman. That vote was significant for two reasons. I cannot remember any other motion in the House of Commons proposed by the Leader of the House the only Front-Bench speech in whose favour was made by the hon. Member for Hamilton. Secondly, the most memorable of the interchanges in that debate was when the hon. Member for Hamilton looked across at the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman)—keen water privatiser that that hon. Gentleman is—and informed him, against the overwhelming view in Scotland, that that hon. Gentleman, representing Stroud, with his privatisation views on Scottish water, had "a perfect right" to be on that Scottish Committee.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make some progress.
  The reason why there are no decision-making powers for the Scottish Grand Committee in the proposals is quite simple. There is no area of policy—I refer even to areas which should be non-party political—on which the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to trust the elected representatives of the people of Scotland with effective decision-making powers. It is rather like the events of the past week—an issue of show rather than substance. People in Scotland will long remember that, while—perhaps under the influence of the taking-stock proposals—there was a royal pageant in the streets of Edinburgh, in London the decision was effectively being made to close the Rosyth naval base. What better illustration could there be of the difference between the form and the show of the decision making? There was a sop to the Scottish people while, at the same time, here in London, real decisions and power were being exercised over the Scottish people.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that he and his colleagues would look at the proposals in the context of what was good for the Union. My hon. Friends and I will look at them, and any other proposals concerning Scottish business which may come before us, in the context of what is good for Scotland. Our judgment is that such minor, tinkering incremental proposals for the Scottish Grand Committee, although containing nothing of substance, will none the less afford a further opportunity for a questioning process about the wrongs being done to the Scottish people by the Government who, clearly, have no mandate in Scotland. On that basis, we are content to let them go through the House, but with the clear statement that the Scottish National party's campaign is for national self determination and national self respect for the people of Scotland.
  11.32 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be brief as other hon. Members wish to speak and time is rushing by.
  Before I ask my questions of the Minister, I should say that, no matter how Conservative Members dismiss the idea of growing dissatisfaction with the Government in Scotland, it is palpable. It is certainly the case in my constituency, where many people are deeply dissatisfied with the way in which their lives are governed from what they see as a Westminster Parliament. That cannot be gainsaid. The Conservative party is deeply unpopular in my constituency. There is one Conservative councillor in the whole of Inverclyde district council.
  In that regard, I well remember the sensible words offered by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who once said in this place that we benefit enormously in Scotland from the fact that the secessionist movement in our country is so peaceful and that the dissatisfaction to which I have just referred is vented in peaceable, democratic ways. The hon. Gentleman was right. We are fortunate in that regard, and long may we be so. I think that I echo the hon. Gentleman's words of four or five years ago.
  At the same time, there is widespread alienation. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) says that it is right that people should question the way in which Scotland is governed and should question the union between England, Wales and Scotland. It is my experience in the part of Scotland that I represent that more and more people are voicing their dissatisfaction with the way in which Scotland is governed. The proposals before us do not go anywhere near meeting the widespread alienation that is to be found.
  I take up the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about section D(4) on column 4438 of the Order Paper, which provides that a statement can be made by a Law Officer but not
  "from the body of the committee".
  Does the Secretary of State envisage such a statement being analogous to one made by a Minister to a Select Committee, after which the Minister will be cross-examined? Would the procedure be analogous to that of a Minister making a statement to a European Standing Committee? In those instances the modus operandi is that the Minister makes a statement on which he is cross-examined for a specific period.
  It is an important matter because in this context we have not had a Law Officer in the House since 1987. Since then, however, we have had the report of Lord Cullen of Ashbourne on the Piper Alpha disaster. We have also had Lord Clyde's report on the terrible affair on Orkney. In both instances it would have been useful to be able to cross-examine a Law Officer in this place.
  Section E is headed "Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)". It states that a Bill can be committed
  to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee".
  Now that the Leader of the House has returned to the Chamber, perhaps he will tell me the position of a Law Officer when a Bill is sent to the Scottish Grand Committee or to a Special Standing Committee, which I think can hear evidence on four occasions before reporting to the House. Presumably a Law Officer could not be part of the proceedings of the Standing Committee, but would he be

  793
  able to give evidence to a Special Standing Committee? That is important in the context of a law reform (miscellaneous provisions) (Scotland) Bill. When such a Bill comes before a Scottish Standing Committee, or as is envisaged a Special Standing Committee, members of that Committee should have the right to cross-examine a Law Officer.
  Section F deals with statutory instruments. What power does the Scottish Grand Committee have to reject an instrument that has been referred to it? If we pray against it, do those praying against it have to specify that it should go before the Scottish Grand Committee?
  I promised to be brief, so I will conclude. With regard to what has been described as a travelling circus, who will determine where such meetings will take place other than in Edinburgh and London? Will it be the usual channels or is it to be pre-ordained by Scottish Office Ministers?
  I submit that the changes to the Standing Orders are slight. There are some advantages, particularly the right to question Law Officers. I make a plea for something that we desperately need in Scotland—an Act identical, or superior, to the Children Act 1989 which inevitably contains some imperfections. We should demand such an Act, the Second Reading of which should be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  11.40 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It is well known that the Government are in deep trouble and profoundly unpopular. They are trying to find ways of ingratiating themselves with people all over the country. There is something deeply unconvincing about the present Secretary of State for Employment suddenly discovering a concern about mass unemployment. It is equally unconvincing for the Secretary of State for Scotland suddenly to discover a concern about the accountability of the Government in Scotland.
  The trouble is that the amendments to the Standing Orders come from the same stable as the poll tax, the local government legislation and the water quango legislation. There is nothing in the amendments to the Standing Orders to prevent a Government in future from being just as cavalier in their approach to legislation and administration in Scotland. I fear that the changes are little more than window dressing.
  The amendments to the Standing Orders may be useful, but they are no substitute for democratic home rule for Scotland. Frankly, they will be short-lived. The Scottish Grand Committee will not operate under the provisions of these Standing Orders for long, because we shall have a Parliament in Scotland to scrutinise the government of Scotland, legislate for the people of Scotland and manage Scotland's budget in future within the United Kingdom.
  The changes are far too little, far too late. Since 1979, we have had four general elections and a referendum in which people have made it abundantly clear that they want control of the government of Scotland to be placed in the hands of an elected parliament in Scotland. But what has happened? We have had the poll tax and all the rest over the past 16 years.
  The amendments to the Standing Orders started life in the document, "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good." I am afraid that the Government have poisoned that
  794
  partnership economically and politically to the extent that they have driven their own right-wing supporters to turn in droves to another right-wing nationalist party. The same people who voted enthusiastically for Baroness Thatcher over all those years are now voting for the Scottish National party; and, in a sense, who can blame them? Anyone who wants to keep the United Kingdom together and establish good government in Scotland must follow the line of devolution and home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Home Robertson: No, there is no time. The hon. Gentleman has had quite enough time already. However, as the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to him again, I remind him that he is sitting between two hon. Members—the hon. Members for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—whom I vividly remember going into the Lobby to vote to bring down the Labour Government and put Mrs. Thatcher in power. They made it impossible for us to have a Scottish Parliament in 1979. But for them, we could have had one by now.
  The amendments to the Standing Orders include the interesting idea of a Scottish Question Time in the Scottish Grand Committee. No doubt the changes offer an intriguing chance to various English Tories to avoid the need to be present in the House to vote on Scottish business in the future. The crucial point, which the Secretary of State tried to brush aside when I intervened in his speech, is that we cannot vote on controversial legislation as it affects Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman tried to shrug off the importance of the vote in our democratic system, but it is crucial.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr.Rowe) asked why more Labour Members were not present at sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh.
  Mr. Raymond S.Robertson: Answer.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I will explain that to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). Why should the members of the majority on the Scottish Grand Committee go along to its sittings simply to act as an audience to listen to idiotic speeches from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) or whoever when we shall not even be able to vote on a substantive motion at the end of the debate? Frankly, it is a waste of public money to ask people to attend debates of that nature. It does not achieve anything.
  What we want is accountable government in Scotland. If we are to achieve that, effective votes must be cast by the democratic representatives of the people of Scotland on legislation and administration in Scotland. In the past 16 years, Scottish votes have been ignored with impunity and with malice by Scottish Office Ministers. Scotland must have its own Parliament. The amendments to the Standing Orders may be a small step in the right direction, but they are no substitute for home rule in Scotland within the United Kingdom.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: At this point I am supposed to say that the debate has been interesting, but it would be difficult to suggest that some of the contributions have risen to the dizzy heights that we normally describe.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Like the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is still talking from a sedentary position; it is simply astonishing to think that he can still say in the House that the Conservatives and the Unionists are still doing well in Scotland. Does he not realise that the people of Scotland do not believe the Government? They do not trust, nor have any confidence in, the Government and, increasingly, they do not even vote for them. The Monklands by-election was a graphic illustration that proved to the Conservatives that they simply do not matter.
  Mr. Robertson: A majority reduced to 1,600.
  Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman continues to mouth, so I must remind him that he had a spectacular role—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The House knows my views about seated interventions. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr.Robertson) seeks to catch my eye on another occasion, I might be slightly short-sighted.
  Mr. McLeish: I would not presume to make a comment after that judgment. Suffice it to say that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South had a simply spectacular role in that by-election as the minder to end all minders. After that recollection, he sits in his place in humility.
  It is simply remarkable that, at a time when we are discussing the taking stock initiatives, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), speaking on behalf of the Scottish National party, wanted to talk about Rosyth. His party has done nothing in Scotland to fight for the retention of either the dockyard or the naval base. It is simply hypocritical for him to think that hon. Members on either side of the House can take any instructions from him on that issue.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No, I will not. We will not allow the nationalists to shed any crocodile tears in the House about one of the most important institutions—
  Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: No, I will not.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, in the course of the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), to ask, through you, where that hon. Member was two weeks ago, when I was lobbying on behalf of Rosyth outside the Scottish Office with some of his colleagues?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a proper point of order.
  Mr. McLeish: I believe that my comments about the nationalists' role in the Rosyth campaign represent the reality and most hon. Members would nod in agreement.
  The interesting point about the debate is that it has revolved around two important issues. First, the Government have presented a minimalist set of proposals, aimed at improving not the government of Scotland in Scotland but the government of Scotland at Westminster. Secondly, the Opposition parties passionately believe that
  796
  one cannot do anything significant about the governance of Scotland until one introduces a Scottish Parliament, sitting in Scotland, dealing with essentially Scottish business.
  In their document published last year, the Government reminded us that we could celebrate the 300th anniversary of the union of the Parliaments in 2007—a mere 13 years away—and that the first Secretary for Scotland was established in 1895, so we could look forward to the 100th anniversary of that occasion in 1995. The point is that the Government are simply betraying those interested in both those changes because their electoral support has plummeted to new political depths. Why will not a party that has been annihilated in regional and European elections and a recent by-election take the governance of Scotland seriously enough to introduce substantial change?
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way.
  The Scottish people are simply sick and tired of a Government who provide tokenism at Westminster but no significant change in Scotland. The Labour party believes that, when the gap between the Government and the governed becomes so large, it is a cause for widespread concern. It is a matter not just of processing government in this House but of what is discussed and why it is discussed. Substantial issues that have dominated Scottish politics recently include water. In any measure of public opinion, the Government's proposals on water are simply not wanted. It would not matter if a Grand Committee were held every week in this House or if the Government set up extraordinary procedures to quiz Ministers. Scots simply do not want some of the public policy changes which the Government propose.
  When the Leader of the House winds up, will he assure us that, not only will the process of government change, but that the Government will dump the unwanted, badly conceived proposals that lie at the heart of the political crisis facing the Government in Scotland?
  Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLeish: I am not giving way. On local government—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations and interjections going on. The hon. Member who has the Floor is perfectly entitled to be heard.
  Mr. McLeish: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The Leader of the House should be aware that the Government's proposals on local government are not wanted. Will he reassure me that he will think not only about improving the government of Scotland at Westminster but that, when proposals are not only disliked but detested in Scotland, the Government will start to listen?
  On the processing of decision making and the discussion of important measures in the House, why have the Government decided, behind closed doors, to close a significant economic unit called Rosyth? That is the point about tokenism and real decision making. The minor changes which the Secretary of State has announced to the Standing Orders will facilitate greater debate. He will agree that it is pointless to change how we debate issues if, on water, local government, the packing out of quangos by

  797
  Government placemen and issues such as Rosyth, we continue to be given proposals that Scots will not tolerate. That is reflected to a great extent in the Government's parliamentary and political unpopularity.
  We believe that Scotland's interests can best be served in this century and into the next by a Scottish Parliament established in Edinburgh. In our attempts to ensure that the United Kingdom has a future, the first step should be to look at measures to introduce a Scottish Parliament. We have given the commitment repeatedly on the Floor of the House that, in the first year of a Labour Government, we shall legislate for a Scottish Parliament. That is what Scots want.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will say that he regards the Standing Order changes as only a small first step and that the Government will start to embrace the real need for significant change. When we see the needs and aspirations of Scots going in tandem with the practical policies of the House, we shall regard that as a success, but at present we shall wait and see. Of course, we support the changes being made, but they are a very small step forward.
  11.54 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) started his speech by declining to describe the debate as interesting. As someone who does not have the privilege of attending such debates as frequently as he does, I found it extremely interesting. Indeed, it had a special flavour of its own which is rarely replicated in our proceedings in the House. I shall certainly hold it in my mind with the fascination that it deserves.
  Apart from the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), with two honourable exceptions on the Opposition Benches, which I shall come to in a moment, I heard relatively few speeches which appeared to be other than loosely connected with the Standing Orders—athough I accept entirely that they were within the rules of order by definition. They appeared to have rather more to do with fighting longer-running battles—ineed, some of them were resolved at the last general election—which are in the minds of hon. Members in various parts of the House.
  I said that there were two honourable exceptions. I would not want to let my short time disappear without making some response to the straightforward questions asked by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised a number of points, including the seating arrangements for a Minister who is not a member of the Scottish Grand Committee. The provision is simply intended to make it clear that the Minister in question is not a member of the Committee and takes no part in its proceedings, beyond making his statement and answering questions. The seating arrangements will not prejudice his ability to respond to questions or make his statement; they are simply designed to emphasise that procedural point. I hope that that is reasonably clear.
  798
  The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about the possibility, as he saw it, that the rules concerning the proposed short debates—an interesting and worthwhile innovation in my judgment—could crowd out Back Benchers. The fact is that the topics of the short debates will be determined by shuffle, like oral questions, so the Government or, indeed, the Labour Front Bench will have no control over the subject matter; it will be determined in the same way as for oral questions. While that will not guarantee the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to raise the subject of Lockerbie, it will certainly mean that he cannot be frustrated in such an intention or such a wish by either the Government or the Labour Front Bench.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Newton: I have only a few minutes and it would be right for me to respond to the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
  As for the initiative in the selection of subjects for a statement by the Lord Advocate—another point raised by the hon. Gentleman—it would be up to the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Office Minister to volunteer a statement to the Committee. The Standing Orders do not provide for him to be summoned or compelled to make a statement on a particular topic, but that is no more than analogous with the position as it applies to the whole House or to Select Committees.
  Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Scottish Grand Committee could ask to hear from Ministers other than those in the Crown Office or the Scottish Office. The answer—I say this straightforwardly—is no. The Standing Orders provide only for statements from Scottish Office Ministers or Scottish Law Officers, but of course there are opportunities in the House as a whole for the hon. Gentleman or anyone else to questions Ministers with United Kingdom responsibilities.
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. Newton: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked me some questions as well. In particular, he wanted to know whether the Committee would have the power to reject Scottish statutory instruments. Reference to the Scottish Grand Committee is a matter for the House, and the House takes the decision after the Grand Committee debate. That, too, is the same as current statutory instrument Committee procedures here.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow also asked about the position of Law Officers in the SGC or a Special Standing Committee. They can attend, under Standing Order No. 87, at present. They could appear as witnesses before a Special Standing Committee, by invitation and with their agreement, under the proposed new procedures. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
  Where the Committee might meet elsewhere in Scotland would be decided on the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he would expect, on this as on many other matters, to consult—through the usual channels—others with an interest in the decision. The physical facilities would have a great deal to do with the decision.
  It being Two hours after the motion was entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [8 July].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That with effect from the beginning of the next Session—

  (a) Standing Orders No. 93 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland), No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee), No. 96 (Scottish estimates) and No. 97 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland) shall be repealed, and the following Standing Orders A to H below shall have effect;

  (b) Standing Orders No. 13 (Arrangement of public business), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 91 (Special standing committees) shall be amended as set out below; and

  (c) other Standing Orders shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this Order.

  A. Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)
  (1) There shall be a standing committee called the Scottish Grand Committee, which shall consist of all Members representing Scottish constituencies; and of which (subject to paragraph (6) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) the quorum shall be ten.
  (2) The business of the Committee shall include—

  (a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer));

  (b) short debates held in accordance with Standing Order C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates));

  (c) ministerial statements proceeded with in accordance with Standing Order D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements));

  (d) bills referred to it for consideration in relation to their principle, in accordance with Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle));

  (e) motions relating to statutory instruments or draft statutory instruments, referred to it in accordance with Standing Order F (Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments, &c));

  (f) motions for the adjournment of the committee, notice of which has been given in accordance with Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)); and

  (g) motions for the adjournment of the committee, to be made after the interruption of business, as provided in Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)).

  B. Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)
  (1) Notices of questions for oral answer in the Scottish Grand Committee by Scottish Office ministers or Scottish law officers on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
  (2) Notices of questions given under this order shall hear an indication that they are for oral answer in the Scottish Grand Committee.
  (3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the taking of questions.
  (4) On any day so specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), questions shall be taken at the commencement of the sitting; no question shall be taken later then three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the Official Report of the committee's debates for that day.
  (5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired:
  Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
  C. Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)
  (1) Notices of subjects to be raised in short debates in the Scottish Grand Committee, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
  800
  (2) Subjects of which notice is given under paragraph (1) of this order must relate to the official responsibilities of Scottish Office ministers or Scottish law officers.
  (3) Not more than one notice of a subject may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the holding of short debates.
  (4) On any day so specified such debates shall be held at the commencement of the sitting or, if the order under paragraph (1) specifies also the taking of questions on that day, immediately after questions.
  (5)(a) No member of the committee except the minister or law officer replying to the debate shall be called to speak later than half an hour after the commencement of the first such debate.
  (b) The Member who gave notice of the subject and the minister or law officer replying to the debate may each speak for five minutes. Other members of the committee may speak for three minutes.
  (c) The chairman may direct any member of the committee who exceeds the limits in sub-paragraph (b) to resume his seat forthwith.
  (6) Notices of subjects under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which they are sought to be raised:
  Provided that when it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
  D. Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)
  (1) The chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee may permit a Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer, whether or not a member of the committee, to make a statement, of which prior notice has been given to him, and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee.
  (2) Ministerial statements may be made for the purpose of—

  (a) facilitating the questioning by members of the committee of the minister or law officer, as the case may be, about a matter relating to his official responsibilities as provided in the second column of the eleventh sub-paragraph of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments), in which case proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion not later than three-quarters of an hour after their commencement; or

  (b) announcing the policy of the Government on a matter relating to Scotland or the response of the Government to an event relating to Scotland, in which case proceedings under this order shall be brought to a conclusion at the discretion of the chairman.

  (3) Ministerial statements may be made—

  (a) at the commencement of a sitting; or

  (b) if questions are taken, immediately after the conclusion of proceedings thereon; or

  (c) if short debates are held, immediately after the conclusion of those proceedings.

  (4) A minister or law officer making a statement under paragraph (1) of this order, who is not a member of the committee, may not do so from the body of the committee; and such a minister or law officer shall not vote, make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
  E. Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)
  (1) After any public bill has been first printed, the Speaker shall, if of the opinion that its provisions relate exclusively to Scotland, give a certificate to that effect:
  Provided that a certificate shall not be withheld by reason only that a provision of that bill amends Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 or Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
  (2) On the order being read for the second reading of a bill so certified, a motion may be made by a member of the Government (or in the case of a private Members' bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business:
  Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.
  (3) A bill so referred to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the

  801
  bill in relation to its principle;' and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of two and half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman. shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
  Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion 'That the Committee has considered the bill in relation to its principle' is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.
  (4) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above shall be ordered to be read a second time on a future day.
  (5) On the order being read for the second reading of a bill to which paragraph (4) above applies, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or, in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), 'That the bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee)': and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
  (6) If a motion made under the preceding paragraph be agreed to, the bill shall be deemed to have been read a second time, and shall stand committed to a Scottish Standing Committee (or to a special standing committee).
  F. Scottish Grand Committee (statutory instruments, &c.)
  (1) Where—

  (a) a Member has given notice of a motion for a humble address to Her Majesty praying that a statutory instrument be annulled, or of a motion that a draft of an Order in Council be not submitted to Her Majesty in Council, or that a statutory instrument be revoked or be not made, or that the House takes note of a statutory instrument, or

  (b) a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a motion to the effect that a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument be approved,

  a motion may be made by a member of the government, 'That the instrument (or draft instrument) be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
  (2) The committee shall consider each instrument (or draft instrument) referred to it on a motion, 'That the Committee has considered the instrument (or draft instrument)'; and the chairman shall put any question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the motion, if not previously disposed of, not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon; and shall thereupon report the instrument or draft instrument to the House without any further question being put.
  (3) If any motion is made in the House of the kind specified in paragraph 1(a) or 1(b) of this order, in relation to any instrument or draft instrument in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order, the Speaker shall put forthwith the question thereon; which may be decided notwithstanding the expiration of the time for opposed business.
  G. Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)
  (1) On each of the days specified in an order of the House under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the Scottish Grand Committee, such motions of which notice has been given in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) below shall have precedence.
  (2) A member of the committee giving notice of a motion for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall—

  (a) also give notice of the subject to which he intends to call attention on the motion for the adjournment of the committee, and

  (b) give such notice of motion and of the subject in writing not later than ten sitting days before that on which the motion is to be made:

  Provided that the subject to which attention is called must relate to Scotland.
  802
  (3) The days specified for the consideration of motions for the adjournment of the committee under this order shall be allocated as follows—

  (a) six at the disposal of the government;

  (b) four at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition; and, in respect of parties other than that of the Leader of the Opposition,

  (c) one at the disposal of the leader of the largest opposition party; and

  (d) one at the disposal of the leader of the next largest opposition party:

  Provided that a day specified in an order of the House under paragraph (1) of Standing Order H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) on which business is to be interrupted at or after half-past three o'clock shall, if no business other than that to which this order applies is set down for consideration on that day, be deemed to be two days for the purposes of this order.
  (4) For the purposes of this order, the 'largest' and 'next largest' opposition parties in Scotland shall be those parties, not being represented in Her Majesty's Government and of which the Leader of the Opposition is not a member, which have the largest and next largest number of Members who represent constituencies in Scotland, and of which not fewer than three Members were elected to the House as members of those parties.
  H. Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)
  (1) A motion may be made by a member of the government providing (or varying previous provision) for the Scottish Grand Committee—

  (a) to sit on specified days at a specified place in Scotland, the sitting commencing at half-past ten o'clock, and proceedings being interrupted at such hour as may be specified;

  (b) to sit on other specified days at Westminster at half-past ten o'clock;

  (c) to take questions under Standing Order B (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) on certain of the days specified under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above;

  (d) to hold short debates under Standing Order C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) on certain of the days so specified; and

  (e) to consider substantive motions for the adjournment of the committee under Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) on not more than twelve of the days so specified.

  and the Speaker shall put forthwith the question on such a motion, which may be decided after the time for opposed business:
  Provided that nothing in this order shall prevent the committee from considering further at a sitting at Westminster business adjourned at a previous sitting in Scotland, nor from considering at a sitting in Scotland business adjourned at a sitting at Westminster.
  (2) The provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the naming of a day in respect of business by the Member appointed chairman and the committee's appointment of future days in respect of business not completed at a sitting, shall not apply to the Scottish Grand Committee.
  (3) Other than as provided in paragraph (1) of Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)), the government shall determine the precedence of the business appointed for consideration at any sitting of the committee.
  (4) The chairman shall interrupt proceedings at the time specified in relation to the sitting by an order made under paragraph (1) above, or, in the absence of such provision, at one o'clock, subject to paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees).
  (5) At the moment of interruption, proceedings under consideration and not disposed of shall stand adjourned (except substantive motions for the adjournment of the committee under Standing Order G (Scottish Grand Committee (substantive motions for the adjournment)) which shall lapse).
  (6) After the interruption of proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the committee may be made by a member of the government, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the chairman shall, not later than half an hour after the motion has been made,

  803
  adjourn the committee without putting any question; and in respect of business taken under this paragraph, the quorum of the committee shall be three.
  That Standing Orders be amended as follows—
  (i) Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business), by adding at the end of line 91 the words—
  "(11) A private Member's bill to which the provisions of paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) have applied, and which has been considered by a Scottish Standing Committee (or by a special standing committee), shall not be set down for consideration on report so as to have precedence over any private Member's bill so set down which was read a second time on a day preceding that on which the bill was reported from the Scottish Grand Committee under paragraph (3) of that Standing Order";
  (ii) Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees), in line 1, by leaving out the words "Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee)" and inserting the words "Standing Order A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business))"; and
  (iii) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees), by inserting at the end of line 13 the words—
  "Provided that, in the case of bills certified under paragraph (1) of Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) and committed pursuant to paragraph (5) thereof to a special standing committee, the three morning sittings may be held in Scotland".

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) at the sitting on Tuesday 12th July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Procedure, and Mr. Colin Shepherd relating to Catering, respectively, not later than one and a half hours after each such Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock; and
  (2) at the sitting on Wednesday 13th July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Members' Allowances and Members' Interests, respectively, one and a half hours after each such Motion has been entered upon; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock; and
  (3) at the sitting on Thursday 14th July, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mrs.Gillian Shephard relating to the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

  PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
  Ordered,
  That the Order [4th March] relating to private Members' notices of motions shall have effect as if for '22nd July' in line 4 there were substituted '21st October'; that the Member; who were successful in the ballot held on 6th July for 22nd July shall be deemed to have precedence in the same order for 21st October; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 13(9), notices of subjects to be raised on 21st October may be given at the Table or in the Table Office not later than 21st July.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

  Director General of Gas Supply
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  12 midnight
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I wish to use the opportunity of the Adjournment debate this evening to question the appointment, and the practices used in the appointment, of the Director General of Gas Supply.
  Regulation and regulators are of growing importance in our lives, particularly when a state-owned utility has been turned into a private monopoly. Such is the case with the gas industry. If regulation is to work, it is essential not only that regulators operate within clear legislative guidelines in a manner that is open and understood; it is also essential that they be appointed in a fashion that establishes their integrity and their independence from political and Whitehall control, and that the persons appointed have the qualifications required to command respect within an industry.
  In respect of the Director General of Gas Supply, the criteria called for a person with a reputation for fairness, discretion and independence, with good negotiating skills and the ability to understand complex legal issues. The documentation issued at the time also stated:
  "Candidates will probably have substantial experience of dealing with competition issues in a business environment".
  Moreover, any connections that they had with the gas industry were to be disclosed.
  I have been assured by the Minister that the integrity of the appointments process was assured by the involvement of outside executive search consultants. We are, of course, expected to be further reassured by the fact that the entire process was overseen by our reliable, safe civil service system.
  What actually happened was far from any ideal. The executive agency involvement gives us no reassurance, as it has been established that it did not head-hunt the successful candidate; rather, she sought out the agency. According to Ms Spottiswoode, having heard that Saxton Bampfylde procured interesting jobs, she phoned it up one Friday night, to learn that the agency was enthusiastic about her and had the ideal job. This enthusiasm was supposed to have been based on her public sector background, combined with her entrepreneurial skills.
  The telephone call must have been a happy coincidence for Saxton Bampfylde, because at the time it had already submitted a short list for the job which had been rejected by the Department of Trade and Industry, for reasons that it has yet to explain. Ms Spottiswoode's name was in any case promptly added to the list. [Interruption.]
  That unusual occurrence, which the Minister will have an opportunity to deny if he wishes, would be nothing more than that if it were not combined with the fact, which came to light, that the civil servant in charge of the appointment process had known the successful candidate for some years. I am talking about Mr. John Michell, who had worked with the director general at the Treasury some years before. As far as we are aware, he declared that fact to nobody, but he participated in the appointment process.
  Ms Spottiswoode's explanation has been that she hardly knew him: she recognised him, but would not have done so in a crowd. We do not know whether that is the case, but we do know that they recognised each other and did not

  805
  declare that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that they did, and that he had some reason to overrule the declaration and allow the appointment process to continue.
  I shall now deal with connections to the gas industry. It seems that a gas consultancy called Economatters, which likes to be known as "the insider's consultancy", lent a hand to the job applicant. First, individual, one-to-one tuition was given, and then a place on a training course costing £2,200 was provided. The same consultancy printed in its May 1994 magazine the most astonishing tirade against members of the Select Committee on the Environment for daring to question Ms Spottiswoode's competence, and her "year zero" approach to her job.
  I have had three different versions of who paid for the training. First, I was told that the Department of Trade and Industry paid for it, although I think that that has been denied. Perhaps the Minister will clear that up. When I asked whether any of the pre-appointment training had been paid for by his Department, I was told that it was not asked to contribute to the cost. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the Department made any contribution to that training.
  Secondly, I was told that Ofgas paid for the training. I would find that remarkable, because no appointment had been made at the time. Thirdly, I was told that there was no charge, but that would be a little astonishing, because it would hardly enhance the standing of the new Director General of Gas Supply as independent.
  Training was absolutely necessary, as the candidate did not know anything at all about the industry of which she was applying to be the regulator. I have a quote which proves that. It states:
  "I went to university in the 1970s when people were concerned about oil and gas running out and one of the first things I did actually before I took the job was ask a lot of people about resources. I was quite surprised that actually there are a lot of resources left."
  That displays a Daily Mail understanding of the gas and oil industry, if ever there was one.
  Secondly, the fact has come to light that the obliging "insider's consultancy" is chaired by none other than the uncle of the Director General of Gas Supply. Was all that known by the DTI at the time of the appointment? Most particularly, did it know about the lack of knowledge of the industry, and who paid for the pre-appointment training? Did the DTI have any role in that, or did Ofgas, or was it provided free? Some clear answers on those issues would be helpful.
  Throughout the controversy over this appointment, we have been treated to one overriding defence, which has been repeated ad nauseam. It is that Ms Spottiswoode was appointed because of her unique combination of public sector knowledge and entrepreneurial skills. That is what was supposed to have made her attractive to the headhunter. That is what is used as a substitute for the requirement in the job application papers to have
  "substantial experience of competition issues in a business environment."
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Listening to my hon. Friend, it is not strange that a question mark hangs over the appointment, its terms of reference and the qualifications necessary, because it appears that the appointee did not understand the job to which she was appointed.
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes his point well. It clearly relates to the training that took place—out of necessity, I believe—at somebody's expense. The Minister owes us an explanation of that tonight. The basic ability to do the job to which the director general has been appointed is under question.
  The overriding excuse used for the appointment is the director general's supposed entrepreneurial skills combined with a public sector background. What exactly are her entrepreneurial skills? They appear to be, first, to have worked with a neighbour at a part-time silk importing operation, which was, we are told, sold for £30,000; and secondly, to have been a partner and director in a software company called Spottiswoode and Spottiswoode, where she gave up her directorship only months before the company went into a creditors voluntary liquidation owing £600,000 to creditors in October 1991. That appears to be the entrepreneurial experience used to justify the appointment.
  What do we have? Our gas industry appears to be regulated by a failed entrepreneur who knew nothing about the industry at the time of her appointment; who has developed a close working relationship with the civil servant who helped to appoint her and did not declare that he knew her when he did; who has slandered her predecessor; who has displayed a Pol Pot-like "year zero" approach to her powers and responsibilities; and who has, with regard to the funding of the Energy Saving Trust, displayed a total inability to understand basic legal advice.
  She has private advice sessions with senior Tory politicians on how to deal with the Environment Select Committee. According to its Chairman, she has driven a coach and horses through the entire energy strategy of the United Kingdom. Surely, in those circumstances, we are entitled to some explanation of the justification and reasons for the appointment, whether the appointment continues to be appropriate, and whether the individual concerned should continue in her post.
  I believe that there is justification for a full and open inquiry into the appointment, and that is what I am calling for now. In conjunction with that, and with regard to the bigger issue of regulators, if the system is not to fall into total and absolute disrepute because of the way that it is being used and abused by the Government, as shown in this example, we need a proper commission to look into the appointment, the accountability and the role of regulators. That is needed if any credibility is to be brought back to the system.
  12.13 am
  The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is conventional to congratulate an hon. Member on his success in the ballot and on raising an important issue in an Adjournment debate. While it is absolutely right that important matters such as the appointment of regulators are raised on the Floor of the House—I have no complaint about that—hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Ainsworth) is thoroughly ashamed of himself for the way in which he has done so. It does no credit either to the House or to the hon. Gentleman to enter into an attempted attack on an individual using the privileges of the House in the way that he has done.
  The hon. Member made a number of misleading and inaccurate accusations this evening, as he has done on previous occasions. I hope that, when he has been in the

  807
  House a little longer, he will recognise that is not the way to create a reputation for himself or to enhance the reputation of the House.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to put on record the background to the appointment of Ms Spottiswoode. The previous director general, Sir James McKinnon, announced in February 1993 that he intended to take early retirement at the end of October 1993, rather than in August 1994, when his second term of office expired. Sir James felt that it would be more appropriate for a new director general to implement the possibly far-reaching recommendations of the year-long Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into British Gas.
  In March 1993, the decision was taken to employ executive search consultants, or head hunters. Following normal departmental practice, a number of executive search consultants were invited to apply, and at the beginning of May, Saxton Bampfylde International. Ltd. was chosen on the basis of a competitive tender. Saxton Bampfylde had considerable experience in regulatory appointments. It was briefed by Department of Trade and Industry officials, by Sir James on the day-to-day requirements of his job, and by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself.
  As the hon. Member knows, we placed a copy of the full terms of reference in the Library. I do not intend to repeat tonight the full terms of the remit that we gave the head hunters or the contents of the public advertisement that appeared in mid-June, but it may be helpful to comment on the main features.
  We were looking for someone with experience of managing a business at senior level, who understood competition in practice, in tune with the way in which markets operate, and with a feel for the ways in which the proper functioning of competitive markets can be obstructed or distorted.
  We were looking for someone who could back up that practical experience with proven qualities of business and policy analysis, and a capability to deal with complex issues involving economics and accountancy. We were looking also for someone with the personal qualities to command the industry's full confidence and who could reach fair and firm decisions that would withstand detailed scrutiny. We made it clear that that called for thoroughness, discretion, independence, an ability to negotiate toughly and to take a firm stand when necessary, and good presentational skills.
  The post was advertised in mid-May, and in the following days and weeks, Saxton approached nearly 200 sources and potential candidates. In mid-June, those candidates were whittled down to a long list of 20, whose qualifications were discussed with DTI officials. In the light of that, and after further research, Saxton came forward in early July with a short list of six candidates—one of whom withdrew his name shortly after. That list included the name of Ms Spottiswoode.
  As a preliminary stage, and as usual, each of the five candidates was interviewed by two of my officials—Mr. John Michell, head of the Department of Trade and Industry's oil and gas division, and Mr. Mike Atkinson, head of the branch dealing with gas policy. Those interviews provided an opportunity for candidates to explore the requirements of the job and the main issues that were likely to arise.
  Unusually, I decided to interview all five candidates. I
  808
  say "unusually" because the normal procedure is that the Minister interviews either two or three candidates, officials having done the preliminary sifting of the short list. During those interviews, I had an opportunity to discuss with the candidates our policy for opening up the gas market to competition, and to form a view of how each candidate measured up to the criteria that I have outlined.
  Having considered all that, and having interviewed each candidate most carefully, I concluded that Ms Spottiswoode was the best candidate. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade concurred with my judgment, although he was unable to interview the candidates as had originally been planned because of his illness.
  Following discussion of the terms of the appointment, I announced on 24 September that Ms Spottiswoode would join Ofgas on 1 October as director general designate, and would take over from Sir James McKinnon on 1 November. That was deliberately designed to allow a short hand-over period, to enable Ms Spottiswoode to familiarise herself more fully with the industry.
  Ms Spottiswoode took up her appointment in the midst of the consultation process, following the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. The period since then has seen many decisions on a variety of aspects of the gas sector. There is no doubt that it has been a very challenging period for all concerned.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the training course on the gas industry that Ms Spottiswoode attended in September 1993, before she took up her post, and to her uncle's involvement in the company that ran the course. We were aware of that beforehand, and also of her uncle's involvement with the gas industry in New Zealand.
  The course that the hon. Gentleman referred to was run by Alphatania—a company owned by Jonathan Sterne, James Ball and David Spottiswoode. The company was established in June 1986 and has been running courses for the gas industry since. Two other members of Ofgas had attended the course in previous years. Alphatania had dealings with Ofgas, therefore, long before Ms Spottiswoode applied for the post of director general. She attended the course, which is run for people with a high degree of economics understanding.
  My Department was aware of her intention to attend the course, but was not asked to contribute to the cost. I understand that it was paid for by Ofgas, subsequent to Ms Spottiswoode accepting the post of director general.
  The hon. Gentleman asked—not in his remarks tonight, but certainly in his remarks to the press—whether the Government's environmental policy, in particular the E factor, was mentioned during the interviews with Ms Spottiswoode. He asked that question with the benefit of hindsight.
  At the time of the interviews, the key issue was the MMC report on British Gas, which was about to be published. There had been much speculation on its content. The most challenging issue, which was at the top of everyone's agenda, was the way forward for the gas industry. Another issue, which some candidates, including Ms Spottiswoode, raised, was British Gas's social obligations in a liberalised market—for example, its obligations towards the elderly and those who were unable to pay their bills. That area represents significant costs—£23 million for the elderly and disabled, and about £43 million for customers with payment difficulties.

  809
  The E factor was not raised by any of the candidates: it was simply not a live issue. The sums involved were small—
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: No.
  Compared with the cost of the social obligations that I mentioned, E-factor spending was running at only £0.5 million a year. Against that background, it is hardly surprising that none of the candidates raised the question of environmental spending with us—and, even if our side had raised it, there is little that any candidate could have said at the time except that, if appointed, he or she would examine the matter in the light of the legal advice offered—
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth rose—
  Mr. Eggar: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East. He did not give way to me when I tried to intervene.
  Mr. Cunningham rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) must be aware that an Adjournment debate takes place essentially between the hon. Member who initiated it and the Minister who answers.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister has just claimed that I did not give way to him, and has used that claim as an excuse for not giving way to me. As far as I am aware, I was not asked to give way, and I therefore did not do so. The Minister is misleading the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not an appropriate phrase for the hon. Gentleman to use; I hope that he will reconsider.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The Minister is misleading the House. He just said—you heard him, Madam Deputy Speaker—that I had refused to give way to him, which I clearly did not do.
  Mr. Eggar: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read Hansard. I think he will find that the record shows that he said something along the lines of "The Minister will have a chance to make his own speech in due course." I took that as a clear indication that the hon. Gentleman was not going to give way to me. I am sorry if he meant what he said in any other sense, but I really do not think that I could possibly have misconstrued his words. I suggest that he read the record: I think that he will then appreciate the reasons for my previous remark.
  The hon. Gentleman has made all sorts of accusations, both tonight and earlier, about the acquaintance between Ms Spottiswoode and Mr. John Michell. The position is
  810
  this: Clare Spottiswoode and John Michell—who is now head of the DTI's oil and gas division—worked at the same time in different divisions of the Treasury in the late 1970s. They did not at that time work together on any issues, and were only very slightly acquainted. They had no contact whatever between the late 1970s and 1993.
  I understand that, when Ms Spottiswoode's name was put forward by the head hunters engaged by the Department to advise it on the DGGS post, Mr. Michell recognised the name as that of a former Treasury colleague. He mentioned that to me during my consideration of the appointment. I also understand that some of the other names on the early lists suggested by the head hunters were known to Mr. Michell, including at least one other former Treasury colleague.
  Such acquaintanceships are very likely to occur in such circumstances, and I see nothing irregular or untoward about it. The fact of the former acquaintanceship between Ms Spottiswoode and Mr. Michell made no difference whatever to my consideration of the shortlisted candidates for the DGGS post.
  The hon. Gentleman's description of the way in which the candidates were chosen and put forward by Saxton Bampfylde bears absolutely no relation to what actually happened. I hope that, when he has read carefully what I have said this evening, he will write not only to me but to Mr. Michell and Ms Spottiswoode to apologise for his accusations.
  I believe that Ms Spottiswoode has shown the fairness and firmness for which we looked when making the appointment. That is not to say that her judgments have always been popular with the industry, interest groups or all hon. Members, but no one should be alarmed about that. As the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks, it is the independence of the regulator that matters above all else, and the director general has shown a readiness to take an independent line, and does so when she believes that it is required by the statutory duty under which she operates.
  Having said that, I am more than a little surprised when I read that Ms Spottiswoode is accused of being too close to the industry and, at the same time, to the Government. She was appointed for her independence—a fact recognised by the hon. Gentleman.
  I welcome the opportunity to put on record the process by which the director general is appointed. I am absolutely satisfied that the appointment was carefully and properly made at all stages. I am also satisfied that we chose the right person for the job.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Twelve midnight.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bicycle Routes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what progress he has made in financing bicycle routes through Church Commissioners' land.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners are always prepared to consider sympathetically proposals for cycle routes across their land, provided these create no conflict of interest with their duties to their primary beneficiaries, the serving and retired clergy. No such proposal has been received recently.

  Rents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what changes have occurred in rents received in the past five years for church lands.

  Mr. Alison
  Gross agricultural rents per acre increased from £57·75 in 1989 to £62·62 in 1993, a rise of 8·43 per cent. against a retail prices index increase of 27·84 per cent. Over this period, the Commissioners' agricultural portfolio was reduced by 14,924 acres, producing net sales proceeds of £76·6 million.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Commission
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 30 June to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)Official Report, columns 660–61, regarding the presidency of the European Commission, if he will now set out the criteria he will apply to candidates for the appointment.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall consider candidates on their merits. I will need to be satisfied that the next President will run an efficient and accountable Commission, and act in the interests of the European Union as a whole.

  Meetings with Members
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister how many hon. Members and right hon. Members he has met at official meetings on constituency matters at No. 10 Downing street in 1993–94; what were their political parties; and in which regions were their constituencies.

  The Prime Minister
  I regularly have meetings with right hon. and hon. Members, at both No. 10 and the House of Commons, to deal with specific and general matters which relate to their constituencies and interests.

  Lowe Bell Communications
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his reply of 26 April to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice),Official Report, column 47, how much Sir Tim Bell has claimed in expenses in connection with the D-day public relations contract awarded to Lowe Bell Communications.

  The Prime Minister
  To date, Lowe Bell has claimed a total of £11,346, net of VAT, for administrative costs and expenses. This is within the agreed upper limit of £12,500, net of VAT.

  Government Information
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of the Government on the supply of information to the media on economic performance and distribution of earnings, where the information can be obtained directly or indirectly from the Central Office of Information data bank.

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for individual Government Departments.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make it his policy that all Departments should provide substantive replies to hon. Members' questions rather than referring them to the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to Childcare Solutions and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 7 July 1994, Official Report, columns 323–24.

  Ecological Sustainability
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that there is a full discussion of ecological sustainability at the Group of Seven summit in July.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: At my initiative the members of the Group of Seven industrialised countries have already adopted an action plan to give practical effect to the agreements reached at Rio. At the Naples Group of Seven summit the United Kingdom will continue to stress the importance of the environment as a priority for international co-operation.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions in the last 10 years he has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.
  377
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: There have been no such occasions in respect of myself or my predecessor.

  Ex-service Personnel
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he will be taking to give effect to the decision taken by the House on 1 July on the welfare of ex-service people.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to implement the resolution on welfare of ex-service people approved by the House on 1 July.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: We already have in place substantial administrative arrangements to meet the special needs of ex-service personnel, which involve close liaison between the relevant Departments; we believe these arrangements most effectively serve the welfare needs of the ex-service community. The Government attach great importance to achieving high quality services, and will continue to keep areas of concern to veterans under review.

TREASURY

  Asset Disposal
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in realising unwanted assets held by Government Departments.

  Mr. Portillo
  The disposal of unwanted assets is the responsibility of individual Departments. Information is not collected centrally.

  Public Utility Regulators
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules govern the use by public utility regulators of public money to hire Government relations consultants.

  Mr. Portillo
  The rules governing the use of public relations consultants are contained in the Cabinet Office document "Guidance on Government Publicity and Advertising", which is available in the Library of the House. General principles on the purchase of consultancy services are set out in section 31 of "Government Accounting".

  EU Agricultural Spending
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 931, what procedures are available to the European Union for paying sums of agricultural spending in 1995 exceeding the limits agreed at Edinburgh.

  Sir John Cope
  The agricultural guideline agreed at Edinburgh can be amended or breached only by the unanimous agreement of the Council of Ministers. The United Kingdom has made it clear that it can foresee no circumstances under which it would agree to this. The Commission will therefore be obliged to manage expenditure within the guideline.

  Manufactured Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current share of consumer goods in imported finished manufactures; and by how much the unit value has increased since August 1992 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested for the first part of the question is available on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed through the Library of the House of Commons. The unit value for consumer goods increased by 13·3 per cent. between August 1992 and April 1994, the latest date for which data are available. The unit value for finished manufactures increased by 15·0 per cent. over the same period.

  Rugby Players
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are made for the collection of employers' contributions by rugby union clubs who are paying or financially rewarding players.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue's arrangements for the collection of employers' national insurance contributions in respect of the remuneration of rugby players are the same as those for any other taxpayer.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 779, what arrangements are now made for the payment of income tax and national insurance by rugby union players.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Inland Revenue's arrangements for the payment of income tax and national insurance contributions by rugby union players operate in the same way as for any other taxpayer.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive a report from the Inland Revenue special investigation branch regarding the conclusion of its inquiry into the payment of income tax and national insurance by rugby union players; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The conduct of any inquiry by the Inland Revenue into payment of income tax and national insurance is an internal matter of the Department and I would not expect to receive a report. I do not propose to make a statement.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent figures on the amount of mortgage tax relief allowed for home owners in Scotland.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is given in my reply to the hon. Member on 20 June 1994,Official Report, column 2.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the reasons for supporting and participating in recent central bank intervention to support the United States dollar; and what effect this has had on interest rates;
  379
  (2) to what extent the United Kingdom Exchequer is bearing the exchange rate risk of Bank of England intervention to stop the foreign exchange value of the United States dollar from falling;

  (3) what consideration Her Majesty's Government give to the balance of payments in deciding whether to intervene in the foreign exchange market to support the United States dollar;

  (4) whether he will publish the evidence he has on whether (a) the yen is overvalued and (b) the United States dollar is undervalued;

  (5) what United Kingdom economic interest is served by the Bank of England's recent participation in central bank intervention to support the United States dollar at the current rate of exchange.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Bank of England participated in concerted intervention in support of the dollar on 4 May and 24 June 1994, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The concerted intervention reflected a concern shared with other Governments about recent developments in international financial markets. The Government consider greater exchange rate and capital market stability to be in the United Kingdom's interests. There are a large number of factors which may have influenced recent dollar and yen exchange rates. The intervention was undertaken to steady market conditions.

  Developing Countries' Debt
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current total of outstanding debt owed to the United Kingdom by developing countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  The total outstanding debt owed to ECGD and the ODA by developing countries, excluding eastern Europe, is £6·47 billion.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value to the United Kingdom of debt interest payments from developing countries in 1993–94 from(a) payments to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, (b) payments to the Overseas Development Administration, (c) payments to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and (d) in total.

  Mr. Nelson
  Debt interest payments from developing countries in 1993–94 were(a) £228 million, excluding eastern Europe, to ECGD (b) £4·2 million to ODA, (c) £81·9 million to the CDC, (d) totalling £314·1 million.

  Disability (Consultation)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what involvement his Department will have in the Government's forthcoming consultation and consideration of issues relating to disability and discrimination and possible legislation.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People will be co-ordinating action and will involve other Departments as necessary.

  Prices Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Government policy in respect of the price of(a) goods and (b) services.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government aim to keep underlying inflation, as measured by the RPI excluding interest 380
  payments, in the range 1 to 4 per cent. and to bring it down to the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual rate of economic growth from 1964 to 1973 and from 1979 to the latest possible date, together with the reasons for any difference.

  Mr. Nelson
  Rates of economic growth can be calculated from the estimates for gross domestic product published in Economic Trends, which is available in the Members' Library. There are many influences on the rate of economic growth.

  Full Employment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's definition of full employment; and what part a return to full employment plays in formulating its fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's economic policy aims to create the right conditions for a high and sustainable level of employment. This requires permanently low inflation, sound public finances and a continuing programme of reform designed to improve the efficiency of markets and strengthen the long-term supply performance of the economy.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures for trade with EC countries on the same basis as tables 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the press notices on the monthly balance of trade with countries outside the EC.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is available from the CSO database which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons are taking actions for stress-related upper limb disorders against the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are at present 106 cases relating to repetitive strain injuries and/or upper limb disorders being pursued by current and former employees of the Inland Revenue, and 15 by Customs and Excise.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing the investment services directive and the capital adequacy directive.

  Mr. Nelson
  A consultation document on the implementation of the investment services directive and the capital adequacy directive is being issued today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he intends to make to the tax treatment of lotteries run by charities.

  Sir John Cope
  In the past the Inland Revenue has accepted that where a subsidiary company operates a lottery on behalf of a charity, the income from the lottery belonged to the subsidiary company for tax purposes. The company could relieve the income from tax by passing it to the charity under a deed of covenant.

  The Inland Revenue has received legal advice that this treatment is incorrect where the lottery is a society lottery organised under section 5 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Where a subsidiary company promotes a society lottery on behalf of the charity, but the charity itself is registered as the society under the Act, the view is that the income from the lottery belongs to the charity, not the subsidary company, and the charity is therefore taxable on the income.

  In order to prevent charities from being disadvantaged by this change of view of the law the Government have decided to introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill to exempt charities from tax on income from society lotteries provided the income is applied solely to the purposes of the charity.

  Income from small lotteries under section 3 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 will also be exempted.

  Subject to approval by Parliament the exemption will apply, for income tax, for tax years after 1994–95 and, for companies, for accounting periods beginning after 31 March 1994. In anticipation of the proposed legislation the Inland Revenue will give charities relief from tax on a concessional basis for lottery income arising in earlier periods where the tax liability has not yet been settled.

  Income Tax
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the reduction in tax payable in 1995–96 resulting from full indexation of relief on the married couple's allowance for those aged over 65 years to pensioner couples paying tax at(a) the lower rate, (b) the basic rate and (c) the higher rate if they are (i) 65 to 74 years and (ii) 75 years and over taking account of the proposals announced in his Budget of November 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 June 1994]: In 1995–96 the age-related married couples allowances will be increased by £330, as announced in the November 1993 Budget. This is significantly higher than the increase which would result from indexation of the allowances.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Institute of Chartered Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last discussed the effectiveness of the disciplinary procedures of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales with the institute.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My officials meet regularly with the Institute to discuss a wide range of matters, including particular aspects of its disciplinary procedures. The last such meeting was on 26 May.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the purpose of his visit to Saudi Arabia on 28 June; whom he met; what trading matters he discussed; and with what outcome.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The purpose of my visit to Saudi Arabia on 28 June was in response to a Saudi request for advice on future privatisations. I was accompanied by a delegation of British business men expert in privatisation. Meetings were held with the Saudi Ministers of Commerce, Finance, Industry and Electricity, Defence and Post and Telecommunications. The opportunity was also taken to further certain British bids for contracts; the Saudi Government noted the interest of the United Kingdom Government in these potential contracts.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of funding of the Insolvency Service in each of the past five years; and what is the extent of the new resources that have been made available to(a) the service and (b) the area of director disqualification.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The running cost outturn for the Insolvency Service for each of the last five years were:

  £

  Year

  Million

  1989–90

  32·8

  1990–91

  35·6

  1991–92

  40·3

  1992–93

  151·4

  1993–94

  154·8

  1Includes amounts for superannuation and internal DTI services, for earlier years calculated as:

  £

  Year

  Million

  1989–90

  +4·2

  1990–91

  +4·7

  1991–92

  +6·2

  A total of £57·459 million has been allocated to the Insolvency Service from my Department's running costs for 1994–95. Included in this allocation is £1·831 million to fund the additional work required to meet the case closure target of 53,000, and £1 million additional in the area of investigation including director disqualification.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Insolvency Service staff were employed in the area of director disqualification in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Staff in the Insolvency Service employed in the area of director disqualification comprise(a) those in the disqualification units in London and Edinburgh engaged directly on disqualification work and (b) specialist staff in official receivers whose duties include the investigatory process which may result in the submission of prosecution and disqualification reports. Their number were as follows:
  383

  (a) Staff employed directly on disqualification work

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  45·00

  1990–91

  43·50

  1991–92

  50·50

  1992–93

  46·00

  1993–94

  47·00

  (b) Staff employed in the investigatory process

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  568·00

  1990–91

  587·50

  1991–92

  590·50

  1992–93

  587·50

  1993–94

  568·00

  In addition to (a) above, as at 30 June 1994 the disqualification unit employed 11 additional staff comprising three seconded from the private sector; four on loan from other Government Departments and four sandwich students. For 1994–95 further resources have been provided to enable up to 14 extra staff, including 10 specialist staff from the private sector, to be added to the complement of the disqualification unit. Thirty specialist staff from the private sector will be added to the complement of official receivers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade further to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 403–4, concerning tenders for the second stage review of the Insolvency Service, why he considered it appropriate to invite Stoy Hayward Consulting to bid in a single tender action; what consideration he gave to offering others to bid in order to determine whether he was receiving value for money; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The decision was taken to invite Stoy Hayward to bid for the second stage review in a single tender action because:

  (a) Stoy Hayward's bid for the initial stage work had been by some considerable margin the most keenly priced; and

  (b) in the course of their work on the first stage review they had shown that they provided excellent value for money.

  These considerations together with the fact that it had become familiar with the work of official receivers and the structure of the Insolvency Service led to the decision that the costs involved in a competitive tendering exercise would not be justified.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases referred to the Insolvency Services disqualification unit in each year since 1989–90 disqualification proceedings have been commenced.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of companies in relation to which reports under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 have been made and the number of disqualification proceedings commenced is as follows:

  Year

  Cases

  Proceedings Commenced

  1989–90

  3,444

  462

  1990–91

  4,508

  449

  1991–92

  6,171

  700

  1992–93

  6,710

  564

  384

  Year

  Cases

  Proceedings Commenced

  1993–94

  7,521

  464

  11994–95

  1,506

  170

  1Up to 30 June.

  Note: The figures quoted for the number of cases are those for the number of companies reported on. However, the figures quoted for refer to individuals. It is estimated that on average proceedings are issued against 1·5 directors in any one company.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was(a) the budget and (b) the staffing levels of the Insolvency Service's disqualification unit for each year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The budget for the Insolvency Service's disqualification unit was:

  £ million

  1991–92

  1·17

  1992–93

  1·34

  1993–94

  1·85

  1994–95

  1·90

  Separate figures for disqualification running costs within Insolvency Service budgets were not kept prior to 1991–92.

  The staffing levels of disqualification unit were:

  Number

  1989–90

  45·00

  1991–91

  43·50

  1991–92

  50·50

  1992–93

  46·00

  1993–94

  47·00

  The unit currently employs an additional 11 staff comprising three seconded from the private sector; four on loan from other Government Departments and four sandwich students. For 1994–95 further resources have been provided to enable up to 14 extra staff, including 10 specialist staff from the private sector, to be added to the complement of the disqualification unit.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he uses to classify cases referred to the Insolvency Service into different priority classifications.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  While each case is considered on its merits the main criterion is the totality and materiality of the unfit conduct alleged having regard to the size of the deficiency, period of trading and previous failures, if any. In addition the following criterion are employed:

  public companies have a quoted share issue

  companies in which the petition was presented in the public interest by the Secretary of State or other regulator

  companies dealing largely with the public attracting high publicity or numerous complaints

  material losses by the public or matters of wider concern to the business community

  quasi criminal misapplication of assets or third party property in material amounts

  successive phoenix failures of less than two years trading periods.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases referred to the Insolvency Service's disqualification unit have been classified as category A in each year since 1989–90.
  385
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The system of classification was not introduced by the disqualification unit until July 1991. The figures from then show:

  Cases identified as category A

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  21

  1992–93

  49

  1993–94

  197

  11994–95

  129

  1To 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many category A cases referred to the Insolvency Service's disqualification unit in each year since 1989–90 were not completed by the Insolvency Service's disqualification unit within the two-year period in which disqualification proceedings may be brought.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The system of case categorisation was introduced in July 1991. Details of cases abandoned after categorisation are not maintained in the manner requested. The total number of cases identified as meriting further investigation but which were not taken forward were:

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  369

  1992–93

  332

  1993–94

  763

  11994–95

  94

  1To 31 May 1994.

  These totals include cases which were not proceeded with because of parallel criminal proceedings, the bankruptcy of the potential respondent or the discovery of evidence which would refute or mitigate the allegations of misconduct.

  Company Insolvencies
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of company insolvencies and how many companies ceased to trade in each of the last five years; and in how many of these cases creditors did not institute liquidation proceedings.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Information on company insolvencies is regularly published by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, in "Business Briefing"; copies are available in the Library of the House. The figures concerned were most recently published in the edition dated 6 May. The figures for voluntary liquidations show the number of insolvency cases not instituted by creditors.

  Information on companies ceasing to trade for reasons other than insolvency is not available.

  Vernacare Equipment
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will complete his investigations into possible breaches of European Union law in respect of the supply of Vernacare equipment in Holland as stated in his Department's letter of 7 March to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East.
  386
  Mr. Needham
  We have several times with the Dutch authorities. We are now assisting the company to prepare a complaint to the Commission, which we will support

  Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conditions or restrictions are placed by the Government on the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in taking part in negotiations with its trade unions on the pay and conditions of its staff.

  Mr. Eggar
  Pay and conditions of service for its employees are a matter for the UKAEA with the exception of its pension schemes which require the approval of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Departmental Inspectors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will list for the period 1979 to 1993(a) the names of individuals acting as inspectors for his Department who are partners in law and accountancy firms, giving the name of the firm in each case and (b) the law and accountancy firms which have been criticised in inspectors' reports.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Table A lists Companies Act inspectors from legal and accountancy firms who have acted during the period 1979 to 1993 and whose appointment has been announced. Table B lists firms of solicitors and accountants who have been criticised in inspectors' reports published from 1979 and the reports concerned.

  Table A

  Inspector

  Firm

  Mr. J. Darby FCA

  Arthur Young

  Mr. H. Moore FCA

  Moore Stephens & Co.

  Mr. I Bowie FCA

  Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co.

  Mr. K. Webb FCA

  Thornton Baker & Co.

  Mr. J. Hillyer FCA

  Hill Vellacott

  Mr. T. Harding FCA

  Tansley Witt & Co.

  Mr. P. Ainger FCA

  Price Waterhouse

  Mr. A. Humphries FCA

  Baker Sutton & Co.

  Mr. P. Foss FCA

  Moores Rowland

  Mr. R. Morcom FCA

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  Mr. B. A. Kemp FCA

  Safferys

  Mr. P. Dobson FCA

  Ernst & Whinney

  Mr. B. Currie CA

  Arthur Andersen

  Mr. A. Hardcastle FCA

  Peat Marwick McLintock

  Mr. I. Watt FCA

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Mr. P. DuBuisson FCA

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Mr. M. Lickiss FCA

  Grant Thornton

  Mr. A. Ridler FCA

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  Mr. K. Carmichael FCA

  Longcrofts

  Mr. D. Anton FCA

  Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte

  Mr. R. Youard

  Slaughter & May

  Mr. M. McIver

  Bird Semple & Crawford Herron

  Mr. D. MacLeod FCA

  Ernst & Whinney

  Mr. H. Aldous FCA

  Robson Rhodes

  Mr. J. Eden

  Bevan Ashford

  Mr. C. Chudley FCA

  Bromhead & Co.

  Mr. L. Ziman

  Nabarro Nathanson

  Mr. W. Hoffman FCA

  Baker Tilly

  Mr. B. Worth FCA

  Clark Whitehill

  Mr. G. Lane FCA

  Chantrey Vellacott

  Mr. G. Staple

  Clifford Chance

  Mr. T. Tress FCA

  Hays Allen

  Mr. R. Lewis FCA

  Kidsons Impey

  Mr. D. Spence CA

  Grant Thornton

  Mr. D. Anton FCA

  Deloitte Haskins & Sells

  Mr. M. Boohan FCA

  Grant Thornton

  387

  Inspector

  Firm

  Mr. J. Venning FCA

  Robson Rhodes

  Mr. P. Powell FCA

  Moore Stephens

  Mr. R. Turner FCA

  Neville Russell

  Mr. J. Scott FCA

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Mr. J. White FCA

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Mr. A. Gilroy FCA

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Mr. J. Heywood FCA

  Price Waterhouse

  Mr. B. Burn FCA

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Table B

  Inspectors' report

  Firm

  Burnholme & Forder Ltd.

  Josolyne Layton-Bennett & Co.

  Brayhead Ltd.

  Orbit Holdings Ltd.

  CT Moore & Co.

  Peat Marwich Mitchell & Co.

  Ashbourne Investments Ltd.

  Wright Stevens & Lloyd

  Data Investments Limited

  Robson Rhodes

  Cornhill Consolidated Group Limited

  Singleton, Fabian & Derbyshire

  Kina Holdings Limited

  Harold Everett Wand & Co.

  Dixon Wilson Tubbs & Gillett

  Collins & Co.

  Scotia Investments Limited

  Lubbock Fine

  Richards Butler

  Gilgate Holdings Limited and others

  Thornton Baker & Co.

  Gerald Edelman & Co.

  Norwest Holst Limited

  Price Waterhouse

  Ramor Investments Limited

  Price Waterhouse

  Greenbank Trust Limited

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  House of Fraser Holdings Plc

  Herbert Smith

  Milbury Plc

  Arthur Young

  Hancock & Willis

  Minet Holdings Plc

  Black Geoghegan & Till

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Ltd.

  Josolyne Layton-Bennett

  Arthur Young

  Alexander Howden Group Plc

  Josolyne Layton-Bennett

  Arthur Young

  de Paula Turner Lake

  Peat Marwick Mitchell

  Aldermanbury Trust Plc

  Levy Gee

  Spicer & Pegler

  Sound Diffusion Plc

  Arthur Young

  Rotaprint Plc

  Arthur Young

  Ernst & Whinney

  The Milford Docks Company

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Lovegrove & Durant

  Edencorp Leisure Plc

  Ernst & Young

  Norton Group Plc

  Hacker Young

  Taylor Joynson Garrett

  Astra Holdings Plc

  Stoy Hayward

  Baileys Shaw & Gillett

  London United Investments Plc

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  CR Driver & Co. Ltd.

  The Bestwood Plc

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Atlanta Fund Managers Limited

  Scott Inquiry
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The timing of the report is a matter for Lord Justice Scott.

  Newspapers
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations have taken place with his Department and representatives from newspaper wholesalers and retailers as part of the follow-up action resulting from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supplies of national newpapers in England and Wales.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A wide range of representations were submitted during the period for written representations on my Department's proposals following this report. I and my officials have subsequently held discussions with representative parties from the industry, including publishers, wholesalers and both existing and aspiring retailers, to discuss the terms of a statutory order and the possible alternative of an industry code of practice. I shall announce my decision as soon as possible.

  Fire Safety Regulations
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will next meet representatives of the fire brigades and fire brigades unions to discuss changes in regulating fire safety and fire regulations enforcement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In announcing publication of the report of the review of fire safety legislation and enforcement on 22 June,Official Report, column 228–29, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made it clear that the Government were committed to full consultation with all interested parties. This consultation process is now underway with a closing date of 31 October. I understand that the Home Office is already making arrangements for discussions with the relevant fire service organisations.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the budget of the deregulation unit for the years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The budget for the deregulation unit in 1992–93 was £790,000 and for 1993–94 it was £1,239,000.

  The Bill team which was set up in 1993 to deal with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill had a budget in 1993–94 of £252,000.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff were employed in the deregulation unit in the years 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The number of staff employed in the deregulation unit constituted the equivalent of 23·6 man years in 1992–93 and 33·8 man years in 1993–94.

  The Bill team which was set up in 1993 to deal with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill employed 13 people in 1993–94.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff hours in his Department have been devoted to work on deregulation unit values in the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The deregulation unit devoted approximately 52,000 hours to deregulation work in 1993–94. In addition, the Deregulation and Contracting
  389
  Out Bill team which was set up during 1993 devoted approximately 12,000 hours to deregulation work in 1993–94. Officials in other parts of the Department also work on deregulatory issues from time to time, but it is not possible to ascertain how many hours they spent on this work in 1993–94.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for the transposition into United Kingdom law of the provisions of European Union legislation suspending until 23 July 2002 the ban on state aid to the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Commission decision 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December 1993 establishing rules for state aid to the coal industry is directly applicable in the United Kingdom, as in all member states. Consequently no United Kingdom legislation is needed to give effect to this particular European legislation.

  Association of International Accountants
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the application submitted to him under the Companies Act 1989 by the Association of International Accountants.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have decided to recognise the accountancy qualification offered by the Association of International Accountants as a recognised professional qualification for company auditors under section 32 of and schedule 12 to the Companies Act 1989. I have placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the AIA's rules and guidance, on the basis of which I have taken this decision.

  Frogs' Legs
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will request the European Commission to call for a European Union ban on the import of frogs' legs from Bangladesh.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: Trade in two species of frog, including their legs and other parts, from Bangladesh is already strictly controlled under the convention on international trade in endangered species. I have no plans to seek any further restrictions.

  MINIS Return
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish his Department's annual MINIS—management information system—return.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: The MINIS 94 returns for the Department were published today. A set has been placed in the Library of the House. The MINIS returns for the DTI's executive agencies will be published later in July together with a departmental MINIS overview.

  Beer Orders
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the mechanism is for monitoring the beer orders; how he obtains the necessary information in order to carry out such monitoring; and when he intends to review their operation.
  390
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: As the hon. Member is aware, monitoring compliance with the Beer Orders is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading. The five major brewers who are subject to the Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989 and the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989—the "Beer Orders"—gave undertakings to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to supply detailed information each year about the composition of their estates in order to allow the DGFT to determine whether the number of tied premises is within the maximum permitted by the Tied Estate Order. The details provided are independently audited.

  In the case of the other provisions of the Beer Orders, including the guest beer requirement, the Office of Fair Trading is reliant on complaints to identify possible breaches by the brewers. All complaints are carefully examined.

  There are no plans at present to ask the DGFT to conduct a special review of the operation of the orders beyond his normal monitoring role.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to Childcare Solutions and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: My Department aims to promote a culture where managers are understanding of the need for staff to balance work and child care responsibilities and is committed to exploring child care schemes which give value for money.

  The DTI provides school holiday play scheme places, and certain of its executive agencies provide nursery places, at subsidies of between 40 and 50 per cent. The DTI neither subscribes to Childcare Solutions nor provides its staff with child care vouchers.

  Inntrepreneur Ltd.
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings he has held with European Commissioner Van Miert; at which of those meetings the matter of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd's application for exemption under article 85 of the treaty of Rome was raised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have held any recent meetings with Commissioner van Miert. However, when my officials met officials from directorate general IV on 4 May to discuss a number of issues relating to competition in the brewing industry they were told that a decision might be expected before the summer on IEL's application for an exemption under article 85 for its standard tenancy agreement.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has recently received in respect of(a) the minimum purchasing obligation and (b) the rents imposed on public house tenants by Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: Since answering a similar oral question from the hon.

  391
  Member on 11 May 1994, Official Report, columns 315–16, my officials and I have received four representations from or on behalf of IEL lessees in respect of rents, and held one meeting with the Courage Leaseholders Association, at which the question of rents was also raised. I have received no recent representations in respect of minimum purchasing obligations imposed under IEL leases.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has had with Grand Metropolitan Estates Ltd. in respect of Inntrepreneur lessees; what advice he has given the company about dealing with IEL tenants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have had any recent discussions with Grand Metropolitan Estates in respect of IEL lessees.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what preparations have been conducted within Government Departments in readiness for the entry into force of the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has responsibility for implementation in the United Kingdom of the chemical weapons convention, and this Department would host the national authority provided for under the convention. The DTI liaises closely, both directly and through the appropriate interdepartmental committees, with those other Government Departments which may have an interest in the convention.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for reform of the legal aid system to ensure that its benefits are available only to British citizens.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Anyone may apply for legal aid to pursue a case in the English courts, regardless of nationality, provided that their case is within the scope of the scheme. There are no plans to restrict legal aid to British citizens.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from the West Yorkshire area concerning eligibility for legal aid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Since January 1994, the Lord Chancellor's Department has received five representations concerning legal aid eligibility from the West Yorkshire area, two of which were from hon. Members and three from members of the public.

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are his responsibilities in relation to the investigation of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
  392
  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  None.

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to protect the rights of wives(a) when a court orders the sale of the matrimonial home to pay off the husband's debts and (b) where the husband continues to incur debts against the wife's income.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) Under current legislation, where a husband and wife are co-owners of the matrimonial home and the husband becomes bankrupt or a charging order is made against him, the court has a discretion whether or not to order sale of the home to meet the debts. The interests of the wife and the creditors will be considered by the court in reaching its decision. Unless the circumstances are exceptional the court will usually order a sale, though the wife will, of course, be entitled to her share of the proceeds of sale. I have no plans to introduce new legislation.

  (b) It is difficult to envisage circumstances where a husband would incur continuing debts against his wife's income without her consent; if the husband and wife have a joint bank or building society account, they the wife can end this arrangement to stop the husband using her income.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the procedures are for ensuring that when action is taken by the courts to recover debts all the parties involved are made aware of impending action; and what remedy is available to individuals when the court fails to notify them.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is the responsibility of the plaintiff in a court action to provide the information necessary to ensure that proceedings are taken against the correct person and that the proceedings are served on all interested parties. If a party to an action is not notified, they may apply for the judgment or order to be set aside so that the papers can be re-served. Anyone who is not named in proceedings but who has an interest may apply to be joined as a party.

  Sun Alliance v. Shah-Shah Court
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will investigate the processing by Coventry county court of the case Sun Alliance v. Shah-Shah Court, case number 9003741.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have already put in hand an investigation into the way in which the administrative arrangements connected to this case were handled in Coventry county court and will set out my findings in a letter to the hon. Member.

  Recorders
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) in how many instances the formalities for the review of the contracts of recorders under the Courts Act 1971 failed to be completed before the due date over the last three appointment periods;

  (2) how many recorders were required to stop sitting due to administrative errors or delay in the formalities of their appointment over the last three appointment periods;
  393
  (3) what steps have been taken (a) to remedy the consequences of any errors of procedural failures in respect of the reappointment of recorders under the Courts Act 1971 and (b) to prevent their recurrence;

  (4) how much has been paid to recorders by way of renumeration in respect of days during which the authorisation of their continuing appointment had not been obtained;

  (5) what has been the cost of any failures and errors in the administrative procedures for the reappointment of recorders under the Courts Act 1971.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Extensions of existing recorder appointments under the Courts Act 1971 are generally made for terms of three years, with approximately one third of recorders' appointments accordingly falling to be re-considered each year. Of the appointments expiring at the end of 1991, 1992 and 1993—and excluding appointments which it had been decided not to extend—there were seven instances in which the formal extension was not completed by 31 December of the relevant year. In the light of legal advice received earlier this year to the effect that the extensions purportedly made after the relevant 31 December were ineffective, four recorders whose appointments had been purportedly extended, and two recorders in respect of whose extensions steps had not been completed, were warned not to sit until they could be formally reappointed. One purported extension was for a period of 12 months, which has now elapsed. In two other cases recorders were also warned not to sit because, in the light of the legal advice, the extension of their appointment was now seen to be ineffective in purportedly extending their appointments to the 31 December following their 72nd birthday, rather than to the annniversary of their initial appointment. The recorders so advised have now been formally reappointed and so informed, except in one case where in the interim the individual ceased on age grounds to be eligible for a further appointment.

  Standing instructions in the Department have been amended to make it clear that where a recorder's appointment cannot be extended before its expiry, further service as a recorder can only be effected by a formal reappointment. During the material time in the early part of 1994 only one of the recorders concerned sat, for a total of two days. On one day he dealt with two cases involving one defendant who pleaded guilty in both instances; on the other the matter was adjourned as the parties were not ready to proceed. The fee for recorder sittings at the time was £315 a day. The cost of the action taken as a result of the legal advice in relation to the procedures for the extension of recorder appointments forms part of the overall costs of the headquarters expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department and cannot readily be isolated.

  Civil Business (Fees)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his forecast of fee income for civil business for the current financial year; and how far this forecast differs from the amount needed to meet his spending plans.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We presently forecast that, with imminent fee increases, we should this year receive £234 million income from civil business, £52 million less than the Department's published appropriations in aid figure.

  Courts (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many clerks in magistrates courts there were in Wales in(a) 1974, (b)(c) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No reliable records of this information exist prior to 1990. In the magistrates courts in Wales, as at the end of December 1993 there were 21 justices' clerks and 127 court clerks, including trainees.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of administering county courts and Crown courts in Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table sets out the approximate cost of administering county and Crown courts since 1990. The division between Crown and county courts cannot be exact due to shared costs. The figures are in respect of the Wales and Chester circuit which includes areas of Cheshire.

  £million

  Year

  Crown

  County

  Total

  1990–91

  6·225

  10·133

  16·358

  1991–92

  8·525

  12·158

  20·683

  1992–93

  10·321

  14·219

  24·540

  1993–94

  10·093

  15·160

  25·253

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts there were in Wales in(a) 1964, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not collected centrally. The provision of magistrates courthouse accommodation in Wales is a local matter for the eight individual magistrates' courts committees in consultation with their respective county councils, the paying authorities.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures are currently under consideration to improve the administration of Crown and county courts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A number of national initiatives will help to improve the administration of county courts in Wales. These initiatives are concerned with streamlining procedures, and with the introduction of computer support for court functions. From 1995 it is planned that the LOCCS—local office county courts system—computer system will provide support across the range of county court functions which must be done locally. Other, centralised systems, such as the county court bulk centre, will improve the service offered in all county courts by removing routine and repetitive work which need not be handled locally and which can be handled more efficiently and effectively in a central, computer-supported location. A business management system for measuring work in the county court was implemented in September 1993. A similar system will be introduced into the Crown court in 1997. The Wales and Chester circuit administrator has published a policy document with a view to extending the use of the Welsh language in court proceedings in the Principality.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Income
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update to the latest year for which the figures are available his reply to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, Sir Ian Gilmour, of 29 November 1991,Official Report, columns 666–70, showing the numbers of working and out-of-work families with children at different levels of income, according to family size, distinguishing between one-parent and two-parent families and between one-earner and two-earner families showing (a) gross weekly incomes

  Table 1

  Number of working families with children at various income levels

  Great Britain

  1991–92

  Thousands

  Number of dependent children

  Total

  One-parent family

  Two-parent family

  One-wage family

  Two-wage family

  One

  Two

  Three

  Four or more

  Gross weekly income excluding state benefits

  Under £80

  140

  10

  130

  120

  20

  50

  70

  20

  0

  £80 to £99

  50

  10

  40

  50

  1—

  30

  20

  10

  1—

  £100 to £119

  60

  10

  50

  50

  1—

  40

  20

  1—

  0

  £120 to £139

  70

  20

  50

  50

  10

  40

  20

  10

  1—

  £140 to £159

  110

  20

  90

  100

  10

  40

  40

  20

  10

  £160 to £179

  130

  20

  100

  100

  30

  60

  50

  20

  10

  £180 to £199

  110

  20

  90

  80

  30

  60

  40

  10

  10

  £200 to £219

  170

  30

  140

  120

  50

  80

  60

  20

  10

  £220 to £239

  190

  20

  170

  120

  60

  70

  90

  10

  10

  £240 to £259

  180

  20

  160

  110

  70

  80

  80

  20

  1—

  £260 to £279

  230

  20

  210

  120

  100

  80

  110

  30

  10

  £280 to £299

  220

  20

  200

  100

  120

  100

  80

  30

  10

  £300 to £349

  510

  20

  480

  190

  320

  210

  220

  50

  20

  £350 to £399

  570

  20

  550

  180

  400

  220

  270

  60

  10

  £400 to £449

  460

  10

  440

  130

  330

  210

  190

  40

  10

  £450 to £499

  340

  1—

  340

  100

  250

  150

  140

  50

  10

  £500 and over

  1,450

  10

  1,430

  390

  1,060

  560

  650

  190

  50

  TOTAL

  4,980

  300

  4,680

  2,110

  2,870

  2,080

  2,140

  590

  170

  1Denotes less than 5 thousand.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are estimates derived from the 1991 and 1992 Family Expenditure Surveys combined. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 thousand and because of this rows and columns may not exactly sum to totals. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  2. Gross weekly income is the income reported in the year of the survey, either 1991 or 1992, with no adjustment for inflation.

  3. A 'working family' is one where at least one parent/partner is in full-time employment or self-employment and working 30 hours or more.

  4. A 'two-wage family' is where the second wage exceeds £5 per week.

  5. The figures include only families in private households.

  Table 2

  Number of non-working families of working age with children at various income levels

  Great Britain

  1991–92

  Thousands

  Gross weekly income including state benefits

  Under £50

  £50 to £69

  £70 to £89

  £90 to £109

  £110 to £129

  £130 to £149

  £150 to £169

  £170 to £189

  £190 to £209

  £210 to £229

  £230 to £249

  £250 and over

  Total

  TOTAL

  40

  60

  140

  300

  330

  260

  220

  150

  90

  70

  40

  180

  1,880

  One-parent family

  10

  50

  100

  240

  210

  130

  110

  50

  30

  30

  20

  40

  1,020

  Two-parent family

  30

  20

  30

  60

  110

  120

  100

  100

  50

  40

  20

  150

  860

  Number of dependent children

  One

  30

  50

  110

  200

  160

  70

  60

  40

  20

  20

  10

  80

  850

  Two

  10

  10

  20

  80

  130

  120

  60

  50

  30

  30

  10

  70

  610

  Three

  1—

  1—

  10

  10

  40

  70

  60

  30

  10

  20

  1—

  30

  270

  Four or more

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  1—

  10

  30

  30

  20

  10

  10

  10

  140

  396
  excluding state benefits for the working families, with gross weekly income ranges as before to £280 to £299, but finishing with bands of £300 to £350, £350 to £400 and £400 and over and (b) the benefits and benefit incomes on which the out-of-work families depended.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the tables. Some of the estimates in the tables are based on small sample sizes and are therefore subject to a wide margin of error.

  The figures are based on estimates taken from 1991 and 1992 family expenditure surveys, using the income reported in the survey year. They are not adjusted to a common price base and therefore should not be used for comparison over time.
  397

  Gross weekly income including state benefits

  Under £50

  £50 to £69

  £70 to £89

  £90 to £109

  £110 to £129

  £130 to £149

  £150 to £169

  £170 to £189

  £190 to £209

  £210 to £229

  £230 to £249

  £250 and over

  Total

  Contributory benefits being received

  None2

  40

  20

  30

  30

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  110

  370

  None3

  1—

  40

  100

  240

  270

  200

  150

  80

  40

  40

  20

  30

  1,210

  Unemployment benefit2

  0

  1—

  10

  10

  10

  1—

  10

  10

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  60

  Unemployment benefit3

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  1—

  0

  1—

  0

  1—

  30

  SB/SSP2

  0

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  1—

  10

  30

  SB/SSP3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  0

  0

  0

  20

  Invalidity benefit2

  0

  0

  1—

  10

  10

  20

  10

  20

  10

  0

  1—

  10

  100

  Invalidity benefit3

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  1—

  1—

  20

  Other2

  0

  1—

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  10

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  10

  30

  Other3

  0

  0

  1—

  1—

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  0

  0

  10

  1Denotes less than 5,000.

  2Denotes without income support.

  3Denotes with income support.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are estimates derived from the 1991 and 1992 Family Expenditure Surveys combined. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 thousand and because of this rows and columns may not exactly sum to totals. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  2. Gross weekly income is the income reported in the year of the survey, either 1991 or 1992 with no adjustment for inflation.

  3. A 'non-working family' is one where neither parent/partner is in full-time employment or self-employment.

  4. The figures include only families in private households.

  5. Other contributory benefits include widows benefit, maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay.

  6. It is known that receipt of income support is under reported in the Family Expenditure Surveys.

  7. SB is sickness benefit and SSP is statutory sick pay.

  Child Support
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those fathers being asked for maintenance for their own children are also caring for stepchildren for whom no maintenance is being received.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand from Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, that this information is not available.

  Lesbian Parents
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy, where lesbian couples are awarded parental rights over a child, that they do not receive more benefits than a heterosexual couple; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The law contains no recognition of the possibility of a contract of marriage between people of the same sex. Social security legislation reflects this.

  In the income-related benefits only an unmarried man and woman living together as husband and wife can be treated in the same way as a married couple—that is, as a single unit.

  In the contributory benefits, adult dependency increases are paid in prescribed circumstances, which can include the situation where an adult dependant is caring for a child for whom the claimant is entitled, or treated as entitled, to child benefit. In this situation no reference is made to the sex of the claimant or the adult dependant.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the plans for market testing of(a) social security commissioners, (b) social security appeal tribunals, (c) medical appeal tribunals and (d) disability appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security further to his oral answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 4, when the regulations to curb benefit tourism will be laid.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have laid regulations today to prevent benefit tourism. From 1 August people claiming income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit will have to be habitually resident of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Republic of Ireland or the Isle of Man. European Economic Area nationals who have acquired worker's rights under EC directives by working in the United Kingdom on a regular basis, asylum seekers; refugees and those given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom will be unaffected.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of all those district councils who do not disregard the first £20 of war widows' and war disabled pensions in calculating council tax and housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  There is a £10 per week statutory disregard of war widows' pensions and war disablement pensions in all of the income-related benefits. In addition, local authorities have the discretion to disregard up to the full amount of these pensions when calculating entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  As the hon. Member originally asked this question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I have limited the information in the table to Welsh district councils. Housing benefit information has been compiled from the latest available information from local authorities for the financial year 1990–91. No details are available for council tax benefit.
  District councils in Wales who do not disregard a further £10 of war widows' pensions1 and war disablement pensions2, in addition to the £10 statutory disregard, when entitlement to housing benefit is calculated 399

  Alyn and Deeside

  Brecknock

  Carmarthen

  Cynon Valley

  Dinefwr

  Lllw Valley

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Monmouth2

  Newport1

  Port Talbot

  Rhymney Valley

  South Pembrokeshire3

  Taff-Ely

  Torfaen1

  Wrexham Maelor

  Ynys Mon

  1Applies to war widows' pensions only.

  2Applies to war disablement pensions only.

  3Denotes a district council which disregards 50 per cent. of a war widow's or war disablement pension, including he £10 statutory disregard.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will order an inquiry into the work of members of his Department(a) in drafting the detailed regulations relating to child support, (b) setting up and establishing the Child Support Agency and (c) managing and controlling the Child Support Agency; if he will discipline those whose performance has been in error or inadequate; and if he will give his assessment of the effect of the setting up of the Child Support Agency on public perception of the civil service.

  Mr. Burt
  No. Ministers are responsible for decisions on policy embodied in legislation, which it is for Parliament to approve, amend or reject. They are also accountable to Parliament for the conduct of the operations of their Department, including its agencies. Civil servants are responsible for advising Ministers on policy and for ensuring that their decisions are implemented effectively and efficiently.

  We keep the policies, management and performance of the Department under regular review and, like other

  Income Support Recipients with Deductions from Benefit

  Region

  Total Claimants

  (a) Community Charge Arrears

  (b) Fuel Bills

  (c) Social Fund Repayments

  Cases

  Per cent. of Region

  Cases

  Per cent. of Region

  Cases

  Per cent. of Region

  August 1993

  North Eastern

  839,000

  97,000

  11·6

  58,000

  7·0

  110,000

  13·2

  London North

  1,018,000

  66,000

  6·5

  36,000

  3·6

  85,000

  8·4

  South Western

  411,000

  38,000

  9·2

  10,000

  2·4

  37,000

  9·1

  Wales

  312,000

  27,000

  8·8

  15,000

  4·9

  36,000

  11·4

  Midlands

  912,000

  83,000

  9·1

  35,000

  3·8

  96,000

  10·5

  North Western

  812,000

  107,000

  13·1

  43,000

  5·3

  108,000

  13·4

  Scotland

  553,000

  44,000

  7·9

  41,000

  7·3

  96,000

  17·4

  London South

  915,000

  45,000

  5·0

  29,000

  3·2

  74,000

  8·1

  Great Britain

  5,771,000

  507,000

  8·8

  268,000

  4·6

  643,000

  11·1

  May 1992

  North Eastern

  753,000

  50,000

  6·7

  57,000

  7·6

  103,000

  13·7

  London North

  891,000

  25,000

  2·8

  31,000

  3·5

  73,000

  8·2

  South Western

  357,000

  16,000

  4·4

  10,000

  2·7

  32,000

  9·0

  Wales

  287,000

  17,000

  5·9

  17,000

  5·9

  34,000

  11·9

  Midlands

  800,000

  36,000

  4·5

  23,000

  2·9

  90,000

  11·2

  North Western

  731,000

  44,000

  6·0

  39,000

  5·3

  100,000

  13·7

  Scotland

  519,000

  42,000

  8·0

  42,000

  8·1

  94,000

  18·1

  London South

  749,000

  14,000

  1·8

  24,000

  3·3

  59,000

  7·9

  Great Britain

  5,088,000

  243,000

  4·8

  243,000

  4·8

  586,000

  11·5

  400
  Government bodies, it is also open to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Managers, including agency chief executives, have the duty of ensuring that any necessary action, including where appropriate disciplinary action, is taken to correct any errors or inadequacies.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available as running costs are not recorded on a regional basis.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the regulations requiring carers premium allowances and invalid care allowance to be taken into account when considering applications for income support.

  Mr. Burt
  Invalid care allowance, like income support, is an income maintenance benefit. It is therefore taken into account when calculating entitlement to income support. The carer premium is an additional amount included in income support for people entitled to invalid care allowance, and increases the amount of benefit payable. We have no plans to change the current rules.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of income support in each region and as a percentage of the total had deductions made from their benefit for(a) poll tax arrears, (b) fuel bills and (c) social fund loan repayments in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. Information is not available for the May 1993 "Annual Statistical Enquiry".
  Source:Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, May 1990–1992.Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1993.401

  Region

  Total Claimants

  (a) Community Charge Arrears

  (b) Fuel Bills

  (c) Social Fund Repayments

  Cases

  Per cent. of Region

  Cases

  Per cent. of Region

  Cases

  Per cent. of Region

  May 1991

  North Eastern

  688,000

  7,000

  0·9

  47,000

  6·9

  78,000

  11·3

  London North

  735,000

  2,000

  0·2

  21,000

  2·8

  44,000

  6·0

  South Western

  310,000

  1,000

  0·2

  7,000

  2·3

  20,000

  6·4

  Wales

  257,000

  3,000

  1·1

  13,000

  5·0

  26,000

  10·2

  Midlands

  699,000

  2,000

  0·2

  17,000

  2·4

  70,000

  10·1

  North Western

  669,000

  6,000

  1·0

  33,000

  4·9

  79,000

  11·8

  Scotland

  487,000

  13,000

  2·7

  43,000

  8·8

  84,000

  17x00B7;2

  London South

  641,000

  1,000

  0·1

  20,000

  3·1

  42,000

  6·6

  Great Britain

  4,487,000

  34,000

  0·8

  200,000

  4·5

  443,000

  9·9

  May 1990

  North Eastern

  674,000

  —

  —

  41,000

  6·1

  72,000

  10·8

  London North

  638,000

  —

  —

  22,000

  3·4

  40,000

  6·3

  South Western

  274,000

  —

  —

  7,000

  2·7

  17,000

  6·1

  Wales

  248,000

  —

  —

  10,000

  4·1

  24,000

  9·6

  Midlands

  665,000

  —

  —

  13,000

  2·0

  54,000

  8·1

  North Western

  643,000

  —

  —

  25,000

  3·9

  65,000

  10·1

  Scotland

  481,000

  —

  —

  47,000

  9·8

  75,000

  15·7

  London South

  558,000

  —

  —

  17,000

  3·0

  36,000

  6·5

  Great Britain

  4,180,000

  —

  —

  183,000

  4·4

  383,000

  9·2

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  2. The regions given are the social security administrative regions, as used by the Department prior to 1988.

  3. Information on deductions to cover direct payment of community charge arrears was not collected in 1990. (The community charge was introduced in April 1989 in Scotland and April 1990 in the rest of Great Britain).

  4. Deductions to cover direct payment of fuel bills include current charges and arrears for gas and electricity. An Income Support recipient may have deductions for more than one of these. Such cases are only counted once in the tables.

  Rugby Injuries (Benefits)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the current annual expenditure on paying sickness, invalidity or other benefits to persons injured playing rugby union football and their dependents.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the European Union has cancelled to Kenya; and for what reason.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No EC aid under the Lomé convention has been cancelled recently. However, differences between the Government of Kenya and the European Commission on sectoral policy issues have resulted in proposals to reallocate 25 MECU of Lomé III funds and 65 MECU of Lomé IV funds—a total equivalent to approximately £70·3 million—from the cereals sector reform programme to other projects. This reallocation and the new projects are expected to be agreed formally later this year as part of a revised national indicative programme.
  402
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the reasons for cancelling a grant for forestry conservation to Kenya in February.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  We were unable to reach agreement with the Government of Kenya on a number of issues, including financial sustainability and management mechanisms in the pilot forests and consultation procedures over excisions, which would have enabled us to proceed with a planned further phase of the Kenya indigenous forestry conservation project. The project has now formally closed. We remain ready to discuss further the possibility of resuming our involvement provided a mutually acceptable basis can be found.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement detailing the value of all types of aid and support for economic and social development in Tanzania in each of the last five years, providing information separately for the different aid and support programmes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our support for economic and social development in Tanzania has been, and remains, substantial. The main elements comprise programme aid, in support of economic reform, and project assistance, consisting of both technical cooperation and financial inputs, focusing particularly on natural resources, health and population, and transport and infrastructure. We have also provided considerable assistance through nongovernmental organisations. The value of our aid has been as follows:
  403

  United Kingdom Financial Year £'000

  PROJECT Financial Aid

  AID Technical Cooperation

  Programme Aid

  Disaster Relief

  Debt Relief

  Other

  Total

  1988–89

  4,154

  7,102

  19,559

  —

  13

  1,061

  31,888

  1989–90

  3,269

  9,445

  4,840

  —

  8

  937

  18,500

  1990–91

  719

  9,425

  20,851

  45

  3

  881

  31,925

  1991–92

  796

  12,754

  10,652

  16

  —

  849

  25,066

  1992–93

  3,728

  12,517

  6,497

  36

  —

  956

  23,734

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom's aid budget was(a) given as bilateral aid, (b) multilateral aid and (c) administered by the European Community in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and currently.

  Mr. Hurd
  [pursuant to his reply, 27 June 1994, column 411]: The answer should read as follows: "In 1979–80, 72 per cent. was bilateral aid, 12 per cent. was chanelled through multilateral institutions other than the EC, and 16 per cent. was administered by the EC.

  In 1983–84 the figures were 55 per cent., 30 per cent., 15 per cent.; in 1987–88 the figures were 60 per cent., 24 per cent., 16 per cent.; and in 1992–93 the most recent year for which figures are available, the figures were 54 per cent., 25 per cent., and 21 per cent. respectively."

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Research
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the report of the multi-departmental scrutiny of public sector research establishments will be published; and what arrangements have been made for public consultation on the report's findings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am pleased to announce that the report on the efficiency scrutiny of civil public sector research establishments is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The scrutiny was foreshadowed in the White Paper "Realising our potential: a strategy for science, engineering and technology". I announced its terms of reference on 2 February and the bodies to be covered on 3 March,Official Report, columns 809–11.

  As Minister for Science, I am determined to ensure that Government resources are spent to the maximum extent possible on science rather than on administrative overheads. The scrutiny team's report proposes a range of options. I and my colleagues in other Departments will be examining these proposals carefully before deciding on the Government's response.

  The Government wish to ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process on the report. There will accordingly be a four-month public consultation period, beginning today and ending on 11 November, during which all individuals and organisations who wish to comment are invited to forward views to the Office of Science and Technology, head of trans-departmental science and technology group. The Government will take these views into account in reaching their decisions on the way forward.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There have been no occasions in the last 10 years when Ministers in the Office of Public Service and Science or any of its predecessors have given any such directions.

  Management Training
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff in his Department have attended management training seminars run by Paget and Thompson in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  According to available information, three members of Central Office of Information staff, and one from the Office of Public Service and Science, Chessington computer centre, attended management training seminars by Padgett Thompson during the period. None has attended seminars by Paget and Thompson.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in how many cases in each of the last two years where market testing of public services took place an in-house bid was prohibited; in how many cases it was allowed; in the latter case, how many times the in-house bid won; what percentage of the total for each year was represented by each of these categories; and what was the total value of the contracts in each category.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Comprehensive information on the reasons for contract being let without an in-house bid is not available centrally. The rest of the information requested for the period from April 1992 to December 1993 can be found in table 2 on page 101 of the citizens charter second report which is in the Library.

  Comparable information for 1994 is not yet available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the basis of his calculation that market testing of central Government public services has saved £135 million; if he will give a precise breakdown of each main component of this total; and what period is covered by these savings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  £135 million is the total annual saving for the period from April 1992 to December 1993, calculated by taking into consideration all those costs which are directly attributable to individual tests. The calculation is set out in the table.
  405

  £ million

  Annual cost of activities before testing

  1,119·2

  Less

  Annual cost of activities after testing

  980·0

  Less

  Annualised redundancy costs

  2·0

  Other one-off costs attributable to tests, including consultancy support to in-house

  Less

  teams, annualised

  1·5

  Equals

  Annual savings attributable to tests

  1135·6

  1The figures do not sum exactly to the total because of rounding.

  Open Government
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to introduce legislation to enable a statutory right of access to personal information as described in the White Paper on open government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Legislation will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what role will be played by his Department in the forthcoming consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on making public services accessible to disabled people.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People will be co-ordinating action on the forthcoming consultation on disability and will involve other Departments as necessary. The principles underlying the citizens charter apply to everyone, including people with disabilities. I am hoping shortly to publish jointly, with the Minister for State for Social Security, a checklist to help service providers and those responsible for drawing up and publishing charters or statements of charter standards to consider in more detail the standard of service they offer to people with disabilities.

EMPLOYMENT

  Work Permits
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits have been issued to foreign nationals in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of work permits issued by the Department in each of the last three years is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Number of work permits issued

  1991

  37,989

  1992

  37,917

  1993

  37,761

  Training
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of training providers funded by training and enterprise councils are specifically Asian, African or Caribbean organisations.
  406
  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department does not require training and enterprise councils to supply information about the ethnic background of their training providers.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of directors of training and enterprise councils are of Asian, African or Caribbean origin.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am unable to give the information the hon. Member is asking for as it is not held centrally.

  Academic Appointments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by what authority non-EU citizens cannot take up British academic appointments when their qualifications and abilities are considered by the academic institutions to be superior.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department grants work permits under the Immigration Act 1971 to enable United Kingdom employers, including academic institutions, where necessary, to recruit highly skilled personnel from outside the European Economic Area. It does so for overseas nationals who have unique qualifications or experience, or where there are no suitable qualified resident workers available.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the ratio of male to female employees at the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Miss Widdecombe
  From the latest figures available the ratio is one male employee to every four female employees.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the most recent figures for unemployment in the 12 European Union member states.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: Internationally comparable unemployment figures based on the internationally standardised ILO definition of unemployment are published by EUROSTAT in its monthly "Unemployment Bulletin", copies of which are available in the Library. These figures, which show that the United Kingdom ILO unemployment rate is below the EC average, are shown in the table.

  Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in EC countries

  Percentage

  Latest month

  Belgium

  10·0

  April

  Denmark

  10·5

  April

  Germany1

  6·3

  April

  407

  Percentage

  Latest month

  Greece

  n/a

  —

  Spain

  23·1

  April

  France

  11·3

  April

  Ireland

  17·9

  April

  Italy

  11·5

  April

  Luxembourg

  3·3

  April

  Netherlands

  10·0

  March

  Protugal

  6·2

  April

  United Kingdom

  9·9

  April

  EC average

  11·0

  April

  1This figures only relates to the former West Germany. n/a Not available.

  Muscular Dystrophy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measure his Department plans to ensure employment opportunities to young people suffering from muscular dystrophy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: The Department has a wide range of initiatives and services which help enhance employment opportunities for people with disabilities, including those with muscular dystrophy. To improve the situation further, the Government announced on 6 May that they will be consulting on proposals to prevent unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people in employment, within the next six months.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sasea
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approaches have been made to him from Europe in relation to the affairs of the Swiss company Sasea and related companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that two Sasea companies are subject to insolvency proceedings in this country. These are Sasea Finance Ltd., which went into voluntary liquidation on 18 November 1992, and Sasea Intertrade Company Ltd., which went into voluntary liquidation on 16 June 1994. I am not aware that any approaches have been made to Her Majesty's Government regarding the affairs of these or any other Sasea group companies.

  Gender Identity Disorder
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has as to the validity of chromosomal evidence as a means of determining a person's sex.
  408
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A reliable diagnostic sex text that examines a segment of chromosomal DNA has been developed by the forensic science service, an agency of the Home Office. This should be available for use in forensic science casework in due course.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions he has made within his Department to ensure that persons suffering from gender identity disorder are described in this way.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Electoral Law (Disabled People)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish a response to the proposals put forward by his departmental working parties on electoral law and processes affecting disabled people.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to a question from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 8 July at column 331.

  Immigration Rules
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to treating the application of a foreign national in a same-sex relationship with a person settled in the United Kingdom or a United Kingdom citizen on an equal basis with that of a foreign national in a common law heterosexual relationship with a person settled in the United Kingdom with no intent to marry or to have children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is nothing to add to what I said during the debate on the Adjournment on 4 May at columns 820–26.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what external legal advice he has sought on the conformity of all immigration rules, guidelines and concessions with English law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Sri Lanka have applied for asylum in each of the past five years; and how their applications have been dealt with.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information covering the years 1989–1993, for applications for asylum from Sri Lankan nationals and on decisions made is given in the table.
  409

  Decisions1 and applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom from Sri Lankan nationals, excluding dependants, by type, 1989 to 1993

  Number of principal applicants

  Decisions2

  Refusals

  Year

  Total applications received

  Total decisions

  Recognised as refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognized as refugee but granted exceptional leave3

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  Refused on safe third country grounds4

  Refused under para. 180F of Immigration Rules5

  19896

  1,790

  880

  10

  840

  30

  30

  —

  —

  19906

  3,330

  475

  15

  455

  5

  5

  —

  —

  19916

  3,765

  765

  20

  730

  20

  15

  5

  —

  199267

  2,085

  4,520

  40

  4,265

  215

  10

  50

  150

  199367

  1,965

  2,690

  10

  2,420

  260

  95

  120

  45

  1Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3Where it would have been unreasonable or impracticable to seek to enforce return to country of origin. Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  4Figures from 1 January 1991 only. Prior to this, these refusals are included in the column "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration".

  5Paragraph 101 prior to 26 July 1993. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  Figures from 1 December 1991 only. Prior to this, these refusals are included in the column "Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration".

  6Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  7Provisonal figures.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the average length of time has been between the refusal of an application for asylum on the basis that there is a safe third country to which the applicant may be sent and the removal of the applicant from the United Kingdom;

  (2) what has been the average length of time for the consideration of an asylum application which has been refused on the basis that the applicant travelled through a safe third country where the application could have been made since the coming into force of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993;

  (3) what have been the average lengths of time for a substantive consideration of an asylum application in respect of all decisions reached after the coming into force of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an asylum application and the decision, for cases decided on applications for asylum received since the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993–26 July 1993 to 30 June 1994—was 3·6 months. Of this, the estimated average length of time for refusals on safe third country grounds was nearly half a month. The figure of 3·6 months reflects the priority that has been given to cases received after the implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 on 26 July 1993, with the aim of resolving the majority of cases within three months.

  Information on the average length of time between the refusal of an application on safe third country grounds and the applicants' subsequent removal would be available only at disproportionate costs.

  Naturalisation
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 455, how long on average it takes to process applications for naturalisation in cases where the
  410
  applicant has not been free of immigration conditions for 12 months and there are compelling reasons of a business or compassionate nature.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not recorded.

  Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the recent Home Office report on refugees; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for his decision.

  Mr. Howard
  The report is currently being revised and will be published in due course.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the newsletter published in April 1993 which gave an outline of the refugee study being undertaken by the Home Office research unit in collaboration with Salford university.

  Mr. Howard
  I am placing a copy of this newsletter in the Library.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of his inquiries, in relation to the methodology of the Home Office research unit's refugee study, undertaken in collaboration with Salford university, as to how the interpreters were selected; what training they received; and what were their qualifications for the job.

  Mr. Howard
  Concerns about the methodology of this study, including the selection, training and qualifications of interpreters, are currently being reviewed with the authors. No conclusions have yet been reached.

  Police Officer (Moscow)
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to appoint a senior police officer to be posted permanently in Moscow.
  411
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no immediate plans for a permanent post, but there are good contacts between Russian and United Kingdom police forces.

  Murder Sentences
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Lord Chief Justice concerning sentences for murder.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend sees the Lord Chief Justice from time to time to discuss matters of common interest. These include the sentence for the crime of murder.

  Coroners Courts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to assess the competency of coroners courts.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Coroners are independent judicial officers who carry out their duties in accordance with statutory rules and procedures. The principal relevant legislation is the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Rules 1984. Coroners' decisions are subject to judicial review. Additionally, under section 3(4) of the 1988 Act, the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, remove any coroner from office for inability or misbehaviour in the discharge of his duty.

  Fire Precautions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to alter the requirements for elderly persons homes;

  (2) what plans he has for fire brigades' statutory powers for inspection of hotels and business premises; and if fire brigades will continue to impose safety measures.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 27 June to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) at column 424.

  Fire Deaths
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the death rates per million from fire(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in each other European Union country.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There were 14 fire deaths per million population in the United Kingdom in 1992, the latest year for which figures are available. Data are not available for other EU countries.

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) whole-time firefighters, (b) retained firefighters, (c) fire stations and (d) fire engines were available in each English fire authority area in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on number of firefighters in each fire authority is published annually in the reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services for England and Wales—the latest report, for 1992, Cm 2275, contains on page 14 a table giving establishments 412
  and strengths as at 1.1.1993. The Home Department has not collated figures for fire stations or fire appliances, but information has been published annually on these on a fiscal year basis by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The figures for 1979–80 to 1989–90 are published in the annual series "Fire Service Statistics, Actuals" and the figures for 1990–91 to 1993–94 are published in "Fire Service Statistics, 1992" and "Fire Service Statistics, 1993".

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will urgently review funding arrangements for non-fire and special services provided by fire authorities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis fire authorities can refuse to assist persons trapped in a car.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In practice fire brigades attend road accidents where there is a risk of loss of life or injury and would always assist persons trapped in a car.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Howard
  Information by region is not available. Details of running costs for each year from 1987–88 to 1993–94 are published in Home Office annual reports. Annex E of the report for 1994, Cm 2508, gives information for 1988–89 onwards. The figures for 1987–88 are to be found in table 2.iii of the report for 1993, Cm 2208.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many locks and keys had to be replaced at Blakenhurst prison following the publication of a photograph of a bunch of prison keys in The Birmingham Post;

  (2) what was the cost of replacing the locks and keys at Blakenhurst prison following the publication of a photograph of a bunch of prison keys in The Birmingham Post.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 11 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about replacing the keys and locks at Blakenhurst prison.
  84 Class 1 locks were replaced together with keys and nib nuts as a result of the photograph in The Birmingham Post. 570 Class 3 A levers were relevered across the prison requiring 500 new keys.
  There was no cost to the Prison Service as the total cost of this replacement was met by United Kingdom Detention Services Limited.
  413
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. has notified his Department of behaviour by a member of staff at Blakenhurst prison which casts doubt on their fitness to perform the functions of a prison custody officer; what were the circumstances; and what action was taken in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 11 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many occasions United Kingdom Detention Services Limited has notified his Department of behaviour by a member of staff at Blakenhurst prison which casts doubt on their fitness to perform the functions of a Prisoner Custody Officer (PCO); what were the circumstances; and what action was taken in each case.
  There have been six occasions where the behaviour of members of UKDS staff has led to their fitness as Prisoner Custody Officers being considered.
  The circumstances and action taken in each case is set out below:

  (1) Assault against a prisoner. The officer was dismissed and the PCO certificate revoked.

  (2) Criminal conviction for theft. The officer was dismissed and the PCO certificate revoked.

  (3) Collusion with prisoners to allow an assault on another prisoner. The officer was dismissed and the PCO certificate suspended. The Prison Service is considering representations from the officer.

  (4) Police investigation into criminal offence against prisoners. The officer has been suspended. The PCO certificate has also been suspended, the decision concerning revocation will not be taken until the outcome of the court action is known.

  (5) Insubordination to a senior officer. The officer was dismissed. The status of the PCO certificate is under consideration.

  (6) Resigned and the status of the PCO certificate is under consideration.

  Extradition
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last 30 years(a) the United States Government have applied for the extradition of individuals from the United Kingdom and (b) the United Kingdom has applied to the United States for the extradition of individuals to face charges in the United Kingdom; and how many of these were refused in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  In the last 30 years the United States Government have made 301 such requests to the United Kingdom, of which 37 have been refused. Over the same period, the United Kingdom has made 108 requests to the United States, of which four have been refused.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of his Department's(a) press releases and (b) written answers are printed on recycled paper.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: In accordance with Government policy, all the Department's
  414
  press releases and written answers are printed on environmentally friendly paper from managed forests and bleached using a chlorine-free process. Where possible, press releases are sent electronically.

  Private Prisons
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people whose certification as prison custody officer has been suspended or revoked(a) applied to work at and (b) have been employed at (i) Blakenhurst, (ii) the Wolds and (iii) Doncaster prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 11 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many people whose certification as Prisoner Custody Officer (PCO) has been suspended or revoked (a) applied to work and (b) have been employed at (i) Blakenhurst, (ii) The Wolds and (iii) Doncaster Prison.
  Prisoner Custody Officer certificates are only issued after a person has successfully completed the required training and obtained security clearance. There are therefore no known instances of people having had their certification suspended or revoked applying for employment. It would not be possible for the Prison Service to know if a person had applied and not been offered employment by one company, having previously had their certification suspended or revoked in relation to employment by another company.
  There have been no revocations at Wolds or Doncaster. At Blakenhurst there have been four suspensions: two of these resulted in revocations and two are currently under consideration.

HEALTH

  Physiotherapy
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will undertake a review of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 to introduce a proper regulatory system within the physiotherapy profession.

  Mr. Sackville
  The profession is already regulated under that Act. We have at present no plans to change these arrangements.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to prevent people with no relevant qualifications from describing themselves as physiotherapists and treating patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  The title of state registered physiotherapist is already protected by law.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about unqualified physiotherapists in the private sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received letters on this subject from 18 right hon. and hon. Members since 1 April.

  Mental Hospitals (Survey)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the survey of English mental hospitals, initiated by the mental health task force in 1993, is to be repeated annually.
  415
  Mr. Bowis
  The survey has been repeated for 1994, drawing together information on the hospitals as at 31 March. A decision has not yet been taken about whether the survey will be repeated in future years.

  Private Patients
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS doctors and consultants also accept private patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The private work of national health service doctors and consultants is a matter for the individuals concerned. Consultants contracted to the NHS are required to devote substantially the whole of their professional time to NHS duties so that NHS patients are not adversely affected by private work.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the average and (b) the maximum level of remuneration of NHS consultants from (i) their NHS work and (ii) private patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average and maximum level of remuneration of national health service consultants for their NHS work is shown.

  average £53,450 (September 1993)

  maximum £99,770 (April 1994)

  NHS consultants may have their pay negotiated locally if they work for a NHS trust. Information on the level of remuneration for private practice work is not available. Whole-time consultants may not earn more than 10 per cent. of their gross NHS earnings from private work.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average percentage and time allocated to(a) NHS responsibilties and (b) private patients by those NHS consultants who do private work; and what percentage of their remuneration is derived from these respective sources.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Breastfeeding
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she gives to employers about arrangements for encouraging mothers to continue breastfeeding on their return to work after maternity leave.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mixed Wards
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made for patients in district general hospitals to have their privacy and dignity protected while sharing a room or bay with members of the opposite sex.

  Mr. Sackville
  That is a matter for the individual hospital. The patients charter emphasises the patient's right to be treated with respect for their dignity, privacy and cultural beliefs.

  Asthma
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the link between asthma and rising levels of pollution from motor vehicles.
  416
  Mr. Sackville
  Since the beginning of the 1993–94 Session we have received:

  25 parliamentary questions from hon. Members;

  15 letters from hon. Members and Peers; and

  44 letters from members of the public

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she has put into effect to provide for the increase in the number of asthma sufferers; and what further measures she has considered to provide for any further increase.

  Mr. Sackville
  Approximately 90 per cent. of general practitioners have been approved to run a continuing programme of chronic disease management for asthma. In 1992–93 the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, spent over £1·5 million on research into asthma and areas which may be relevant to the condition. The Department's centrally commissioned research programme is undertaking four studies on asthma. In 1992 the Department set up the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants—COMEAP—which has since set up a sub-committee to advise on the link between exposure to low levels of air pollution and asthma. As part of "The Health of the Nation" programme the Government are promoting a smoke-free environment.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 15 April,Official Report, column 314, on the ethnic origin of nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, if the results of the survey are yet available.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Mental Health Care (Management)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the leadership programme for top managers in mental health will be delivered, so as to develop inspirational leadership, creative thinking, and enhancement of the personal abilities of senior staff; and what contribution carers of severely mentally ill people will make to this programme.

  Mr. Bowis
  The programme will be delivered by means of three, three-day residential workshops held over a period of nine months; and by the pursuit of individual goals and objectives within each participant's organisation; supported by networking activities between participants. The programme, which commenced in May, will evolve in response to the needs of the individual participants. It is probable that, in due course, it will include a contribution from both users of mental health services and their carers.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued regarding the post-registration experience and training appropriate in the management and care of mentally disordered persons with behaviours that may challenge for(a) nurses with a learning disability mental health registration and (b) doctors with a registration in psychiatry.

  Mr. Bowis
  The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has statutory responsibility for determining the kind, standard and
  417
  content of training courses leading to registration, and further courses for those already registered, as nurses, midwives and health visitors. Statutory responsibility for validating and approving courses and institutions rests with the four national boards. Standards of education and training for psychiatrists are the responsibility of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the compatibility between "The Health of the Nation" targets, the Children Act 1989 and a reduction in the number of health visitors.

  Mr. Sackville
  Whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff in the community have increased by 14·8 per cent. between 1988 and 1992 and by 1·4 per cent. between 1991 and 1992. Responsibility for meeting targets set out in "The Health of the Nation" and the requirements of the Children Act 1989 are not the sole responsibility of health visitors although their contribution is valued.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health visitors were employed in each district health authority area in September 1988, expressed as whole time equivalents.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]:The information will be placed in the Library.

  Redundant Hospitals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the compatibility with her policy of open government of the refusal of health authorities to disclose the selling price of redundant hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of individual land and property sales are commercially sensitive and exempt from disclosure. It is for the regional health authority managing the transaction to determine with their professional advisers if the sale price can be released after completion of the sale.

  Hospital Treatment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the average number of hospitals available for treatment of a patient in respect of a single episode of illness under the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  All acute hospitals provide a wide range of services for acute and chronic illness. Some hospitals provide specialist services for wider populations which would not be viable if they were duplicated in every hospital.

  Nurse to Patient Ratio
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 514, if she will give the qualified nurse to patient ratios for which the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 April at column 401.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the latest figures and list the number of staff employed by the regional health authorities in the last three years.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each of the 14 former English regional health authorities(a) the number of core regional health authorities staff, (b) the number of other regional health authority-employed staff and (c) total regional health authority staff for each year since 1990.

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

  Numbers of regional health authority headquarters staff by function (WTE) March 1994; March 1993; July 1992 (core staff only); September 1990 (total staff only)

  Core Staff

  Other

  Total

  1994

  Northern

  159

  1,328

  1,487

  Yorkshire

  179

  1,311

  1,490

  Trent

  231

  572

  803

  East Anglian

  141

  392

  533

  North West Thames

  134

  292

  426

  North East Thames

  139

  546

  685

  South East Thames

  237

  333

  570

  South West Thames

  161

  292

  453

  Wessex

  242

  335

  577

  Oxford

  167

  651

  818

  South Western

  183

  1,165

  1,348

  West Midlands

  196

  1,029

  1,226

  Mersey

  179

  907

  1,086

  North Western

  265

  1,165

  1,431

  TOTAL

  2,613

  10,318

  12,930

  1993

  Northern

  318

  1,410

  1,728

  Yorkshire

  343

  2,731

  3,074

  Trent

  299

  566

  865

  East Anglian

  163

  413

  576

  North West Thames

  220

  316

  536

  North East Thames

  211

  622

  834

  South East Thames

  338

  323

  660

  South West Thames

  262

  527

  789

  Wessex

  308

  285

  593

  Oxford

  184

  606

  790

  South Western

  228

  1,147

  1,375

  West Midlands

  428

  2,347

  2,775

  Mersey

  194

  931

  1,125

  North Western

  410

  1,148

  1,558

  TOTAL

  3,905

  13,371

  17,276

  1992

  Core staff

  Northern

  656

  Yorkshire

  518

  Trent

  509

  East Anglian

  292

  North West Thames

  361

  North East Thames

  580

  South East Thames

  604

  South West Thames

  611

  Wessex

  331

  Oxford

  567

  South Western

  559

  West Midlands

  1,168

  Mersey

  313

  North Western

  785

  TOTAL

  7,854

  419

  1990

  Total

  Northern

  2,740

  Yorkshire

  3,050

  Trent

  3,340

  East Anglian

  1,330

  North West Thames

  1,750

  North East Thames

  2,710

  South East Thames

  2,210

  South West Thames

  2,080

  Wessex

  1,430

  Oxford

  1,670

  South Western

  1,800

  West Midlands

  4,640

  Mersey

  1,740

  North Western

  3,130

  TOTAL

  33,620

  Notes:

  1. Data separated into 'core' and 'other' functions were not collected before 1992.

  2. 1992 RHA total staffing is not available.

  3. 1990 figures are from the September census data and cannot be disaggregated into 'core' and 'other' staff.

  4. Figures in the 'Total' column include consultants, senior registrars and ambulance staff on RHA payrolls.

  5. No RHA staffing figures are available for 1991.

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued regarding the funding of dedicated social work services in(a) hospice units and (b) within palliative care services generally; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are responsible for the cost of social work support to the national health service.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the legal powers of local authorities to run voluntary registration schemes for providers of independent domiciliary care; whether they are able to levy charges to cover the cost of such schemes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Whether legal powers exist will depend on the purpose for which the scheme is established and how it is used. Local authorities should seek their own legal advice based on the terms of each scheme.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the turnover of each trust in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested, for years 1991–92 and 1992–93, has been placed in the Library. Information for 1993–94 will not be available until the annual accounts have been audited.

  Cost Improvement Programmes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table showing the annual cost improvement programmes of provider units in each region in each of the last four years.
  420
  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not audited and used for management purposes only.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a table showing the running costs of her Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about departmental running costs by region is not available. Details of the Department's gross running costs are provided in the Department's annual reports for 1993–94, Cm 2212 and 1994–95, Cm 2512, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department maintains on extra-contractual referral numbers in each region.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service executive quarterly monitoring system collects information by region on their actual spend on extra-contractual referrals compared with their planned levels of spend. Figures on the number of extra-contractual referral numbers in each region are not collected.

  NHS Review Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost to date of carrying out the NHS functions and manpower review and of any changes made in the light of the review's findings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No estimate has been made of costs incurred to date as a result of changes in the light of the review's findings.

  Life-threatening Pregnancies
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the availability of hospital beds in south Manchester hospitals for women with life-threatening pregnancies.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is the responsibility of district health authorities to ensure that comprehensive health services are available for all their residents, within available resources. The right hon. Member may wish to contact Professor Robert Boyd, chairman of Manchester health authority, for further information.

  Ambulances
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct(a) West Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) Nottinghamshire, (d) South Yorkshire, (e) East Sussex, (f) Berkshire, (g) Avon and (h) West Country and Hampshire NHS ambulance trusts immediately to remove bull bars from all vehicles, and instruct all ambulance services that the fitting of bull bars to emergency vehicles is prohibited on the grounds of safety.

  Mr. Sackville
  I will be consulting the Ambulance Service on this issue.

  Community Care
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will bring forward regulations under the powers provided under section 49 of the National Health Service
  421
  and Community Care Act 1990 to enable staff to transfer from health authority to local authority employment in connection with care in the community.

  Mr. Bowis
  The regulations as described will not now be made. This is because they would not have helped secure the outcome envisaged.

  A more detailed explanation of the reasons for this decision has been placed in the Library.

  Health Service Administration
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 25 November,Official Report, column 136, what were the total salary costs for (a) managerial staff, (b) clerical and administrative staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 12 May 1994]: Analyses of salaries and wages costs for hospital and community health services in England are shown in the table. The figures for 1992–93 remain provisional. The information for 1993–94 is not yet available.

  Hospital and community health services salary costs for 1992–931

  £ thousands

  Region

  General and senior managers costs

  Administrative and clerical staff costs

  Nursing and midwifery staff costs

  Northern

  22,651

  66,316

  310,239

  Yorkshire

  27,774

  56,606

  263,872

  Trent

  26,396

  96,330

  411,226

  East Anglia

  17,082

  46,580

  205,326

  North West Thames

  23,251

  72,170

  222,335

  North East Thames

  33,957

  91,814

  338,310

  South East Thames

  30,011

  95,480

  339,045

  South West Thames

  30,514

  75,583

  281,358

  Wessex

  23,209

  56,258

  243,234

  Oxford

  18,677

  60,063

  228,857

  South Western

  10,006

  34,065

  118,118

  West Midlands

  42,224

  139,484

  548,150

  Mersey

  11,094

  29,209

  115,032

  North Western

  30,247

  96,395

  415,600

  SHAs

  7,993

  29,805

  98,219

  NHS trusts

  143,145

  459,743

  2,091,859

  TOTAL

  498,171

  1,505,901

  6,230,780

  Source:

  Annual accounts and financial returns 1992–93 of regional and district health authorities in England, national health service trusts and special health authorities.

  Note: Figures vary from those supplied in the earlier answer to the hon. Member for Darlington, of 25 November 1993, Official Report, column 136, due to the latest validated data being used. Salaries and wages costs incurred by family health services authorities are excluded as corresponding costs are not identified on the same basis. Salary costs are the gross pay costs of directly employed staff including employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions except for nursing and midwifery staff where the costs of agency nurses are also included.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 24 June,Official Report, columns 364–65, if she will make it her policy to require the total income from NHS asset sales as shown in regional health authorities accounts to be itemised, showing the income from individual large disposals.
  422
  Mr. Sackville
  No. Income from the sale of individual assets is commercially confidential and the release of price-sensitive information could disadvantage future asset sales.

  Press and Public Relations
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 2 March 1994,Official Report, column 763, what was the total expenditure on press and public relations by (a) her Department, (b) The national health service management executive and its outposts and (c) health authorities in 1993–94; what was the estimated expenditure on press and public relations in 1993–94; and how much is projected to be spent in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Sackville
  Functions which are commonly associated with press and public relations for the Department of Health including the national health service executive are carried out by the Department's information division. Expenditure on manpower and running costs for 1993–94 was £1·897 million. This information is not yet available for health authorites.

  Projections of expenditure for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are not available.

  Advertising
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 6 December 1993,Official Report, column 61, how much (a) her Department, (b) the NHSME, (c) trusts and (d) health authorities spent on (i) television advertising, (ii) radio advertising and (iii) press advertising in each year since 1987; and how much is projected to be spent in 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the Department of Health, including the national health service executive, is as follows:

  year

  £ million

  1987–88

  Television

  1·874

  Radio

  0·540

  Press

  1·900

  1988–89

  Television

  1·662

  Radio

  0·205

  Press

  1·196

  1989–90

  Television

  3·549

  Radio

  0·127

  Press

  2·739

  1990–91

  Television

  1·900

  Radio

  0·005

  Press

  2·258

  1991–92

  Television

  4·489

  Radio

  0·015

  Press

  3·104

  1992–93

  Television

  2·773

  Radio

  0·020

  Press

  1·976

  423

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94 (estimated expenditure)

  Television

  2·548

  Radio

  0·818

  Press

  1·475

  Decisions have not yet been made on the use of advertising for 1994–95. Information for health authorities and trusts is not available centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial or other support his Department gives to voluntary organisations promoting energy efficiency for low-income households; what is the value of such assistance in the current financial year; what advice on energy efficiency and reducing fuel bills is available to householders from his Department; what additional funds have been made available in 1994–95 to low income householders to improve efficiency following the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel; if there is a target for the number of households to benefit from such assistance; what progress has been made towards achieving these targets; what health and safety considerations are made when installing draughtproofing in households to ensure adequate ventilation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  My Department provides financial support to eight energy projects engaged in the delivery of draughtproofing to low income households under the action for community employment programme. This assistance will amount to some £440,000 in 1994–95.

  Advice on energy efficiency and reducing fuel bills in the home is available through targeted publicity campaigns and the distribution of a wide range of publications on energy saving measures.

  Following the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel an additional £1 million is available for energy efficiency measures in low-income homes in 1994–95, effectively doubling the budget for these measures. It is planned that an estimated 12,000 households will benefit from such assistance in the current year. Some 3,100 households have benefited to date.

  The ACE energy projects follow a mandatory set of instructions designed to ensure that combustion ventilation within the household will be adequate after draughtproofing. These instructions were drawn up in conjunction with the Building Research Establishment. In addition, each householder receives a safety leaflet giving advice on how to maintain an adequate supply of air to the heating appliance.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, columns 397–98, if he will list each account of the meeting or of matters arising at the meeting
  424
  which were transmitted to (a) the Foreign Office in London, (b) the United Kingdom high commissioner in Malaysia and (c) other Government Departments.

  Mr. Goodlad
  A single account of the meeting was transmitted from Hong Kong to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the British high commissioner in Malaysia on 17 January 1985. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was sent a copy of the minutes of the meeting in 1992.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, columns 397–98, what is the present relationship between Mr. Chooi Mun Sou and the Hong Kong Government; when and by which officials this relationship was commenced; and how much money has been paid to him and his company by the Hong Kong Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Mr. Chooi Mun Sou is the senior partner of a firm of solicitors instructed by the Attorney-General of the Hong Kong Government in December 1985 to act in proceedings in the Malaysian courts. It is not the practice of the Hong Kong Government to disclose the fees that they pay to individual professionals engaged to act on their behalf.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, columns 397–98, who was the person from the Attorney-General's Department who attended the meeting; and in what capacity and on what basis each of the persons at the meeting were present.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The name of the person from the Attorney-General's chambers was not recorded. The names of the other people who attended the meeting, and the capacity in which they attended, were given in my answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 398.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the name of the Hong Kong Government official who authorised the addifavit sworn by C. M. Adkins and filed with the High Court in London on 15 June 1990.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Ms Adkins was employed by solicitors acting for the Hong Kong Government and as such was authorised to swear affidavits on behalf of the Hong Kong Government.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 397–98, if he will list each occasion on which the minutes of the meeting on 17 January 1985 as recorded by the Hong Kong side have been made subject to a public interest immunity certificate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The document in question was the subject of a certificate claiming public interest immunity in the course of Lorrain Osman's seventh application for habeas corpus.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 397–98, if he will list the files taken to the meeting on 17 January 1985 by the late Sir John Brembridge.
  425
  Mr. Goodlad
  I understand that no files or papers were taken to the meeting by the late Sir John Brembridge.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 398, what is the practice of his Law Officers and the Law Officers of Hong Kong, relating to the circulation of information contained in a witness's or defendant's statement to parties not connected to an investigation.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is not the practice of the Attorney-General in Hong Kong to supply copies of statements of witnesses or defendants to third parties but, exceptionally, he may do so, in the interests of law enforcement, to other law enforcement Departments.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Court of Justice decision on the Greek sanctions on Macedonia.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We continue to regard the Greek action against Macedonia as unjustified and to support the Commission's decision to take the case to the European Court of Justice. The Court's decision not to indicate interim measures does not address the main case before the court, or the legality of the Greek action under Community law.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there has been a recent withdrawal of Serbian forces along the Macedonian border near Straza.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Yes. Under an agreement brokered by UNPROFOR on 1 July, the Serbian forces occupying Straza Peak, and the Macedonian forces observing them, withdrew. UNPROFOR has set up an observation post on the hill.

  Caspian Sea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 181, if he will make a statement on the view submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation to Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow about the legal status of the Caspian sea and the implications of those Russian views on the British-Azerbaijani memorandum signed in February on oil and gas projects in the Caspian sea.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The note from the Russian Foreign Ministry set out the Russian views on the status of the Caspian sea—namely, that this is a single eco-system to be used jointly by all Caspian states. It also stated that steps taken by any Caspian state to obtain any advantages as regards the area and resources of the Caspian sea are contrary to the interests of other Caspian states and cannot be recognised.

  The memorandum on co-operation between the United Kingdom and Azerbaijan in the field of energy indicates the intention of the two Governments actively to encourage increased co-operation in areas of oil and gas exploration and development. This work continues.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the practice in Bangladesh of issuing fatwas against dissidents, with particular reference to Tushma Nasreen; and what representations he has made about this.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The EU presidency has raised with the Bangladesh authorities our concerns for Ms Nasreen's safety. It has called on extremists to refrain from making illegal threats and announced that it will take action against those who ignore the warning.

  Middle East
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits undertaken by members of the royal family to(a) Bahrain, (b) Egypt, (c) Iran, (d) Iraq, (e) Israel, (f) Jordan, (g) Kuwait, (h) Lebanon, (i) Oman, (j) Qatar, (k) Saudi Arabia, (l) Syria, (m) the United Arab Emirates and (n) the Yemen since 1979.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Members of the royal family have paid official visits to these countries during this period as follows:

  (a) Bahrain—The Queen (1979), The Duke of Edinburgh (1989), The Prince of Wales (1986), The Princess Royal (1991), The Duke of Gloucester (1984, 1989), The Duke of Kent (1981);

  (b) Egypt—The Prince of Wales (1981), The Princess of Wales (1982), The Duke of Gloucester (1992), The Duke of Kent (1992);

  (c) Iran—none;

  (d) Iraq—none;

  (e) Israel—none;

  (f) Jordan—The Queen (1984); The Duke of Kent (1993);

  (g) Kuwait—The Queen (1979), The Prince of Wales (1989, 1993), The Princess Royal (1987, 1991), The Duke of Gloucester (1984), The Duke of Kent (1981);

  (h) Lebanon—The Princess Royal (1982);

  (i) Oman—The Queen (1979), The Duke of Edinburgh (1990, 1991), The Prince of Wales (1986, 1992), The Duke of Gloucester (1980), The Duke of Kent (1985, 1989);

  (j) Qatar—The Queen (1979), The Prince of Wales (1986), The Princess Royal (1991), The Duke of Gloucester (1984, 1989), The Duke of Kent (1981);

  (k) Saudi Arabia—The Queen (1979), The Prince of Wales (1986, 1989, 1990, 1993), The Duke of Kent (1993);

  (l) Syria—none;

  (m) United Arab Emirates—The Queen (1979), The Duke of Edinburgh (1991), The Prince of Wales (1989,1993), The Princess Royal (1984, 1987, 1991), The Duke of Gloucester (1991), The Duke of Kent (1981);

  (n) Yemen—The Princess Royal (1982).

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all Chernobyl-type nuclear power stations still in existence, indicating whether they are still in active operation; what measures have been taken to(a) make them safe, (b) convert them or (c) close them in due course; and how many such stations have been closed since the Chernobyl disaster.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The nuclear reactor destroyed in the 1986 Chernobyl accident was an RBMK 1000. Eleven reactors of the same type remain in operation in Russia—four at Sosnovy Bor, Leningrad; four at Kursk; and three at Smolensk. Two 1000s remain in operation at
  427
  Chernobyl, Ukraine where a third unit has been closed following a fire in 1991. Two RBK 1500s are currently operating at Ignalina, Lithuania. Extensive safety improvement programmes have been carried out on RBMK reactors since the Chernobyl accident. Full details could be provided only by the countries concerned, which are responsible for all safety decisions, including whether or not their nuclear power plants should continue to operate.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been established by the United Nations investigator about the origins of the massacre in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The initial report by the special rapporteur, Mr. Rene Degni-Segui, found that the massacres were planned in advance, citing as evidence a systematic campaign of incitement to racial hatred by the interim-Government-controlled media, military training and equipping of the Hutu militias from November 1993, the erection of barriers within 45 minutes of the air crash and lists of targets which correspond with those killed.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  South Yemen
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the adequacy of water supplies in South Yemen; and what initiatives there are by the international community to alleviate suffering from water shortage caused by military activity.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The water supply in Aden has been insufficient to meet the daily needs of the inhabitants. International Committee of the Red Cross, to which we donated £250,000 and the European Union approximately £1·03 million, have done an excellent job in maintaining the supply of some water in difficult circumstances. Now that the fighting is over in Aden we hope that the necessary repairs can be carried out to allow the restoration of normal water supplies.

  We are unaware of any problems with the water supply in other areas of Yemen.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how Gibraltar's interests will be represented in the European Parliament.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Gibraltar does not have an MEP because annexe II of the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections limits the franchise in European Parliament elections to the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for representing Gibraltar within the European Union.

  Nuclear Terrorism
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for the foreign security services to collaborate with the new office of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation established in Moscow to combat nuclear materials smuggling and nuclear terrorism.
  428
  Mr. Hurd
  Our security and intelligence agencies work with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of a large number of countries where we have common interests and concerns. However, for reasons which were explained during the debates on the Intelligence Services Act 1994, it is not the Government's practice to comment on such operational activities.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will declare its support for the proposals in United Nations General Assembly resolutions 36/50 (1981) and 37/30 (1982); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The hon. Member will know that the United Kingdom abstained on the two UN resolutions that he cites. We did so, in the company of our European Community partners and many other countries, in the belief that by so doing, we would help the process of reconciliation and the search for a diplomatic solution between Portugal and Indonesia. We therefore welcome the current dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia on East Timor's future, which is taking place under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on sales of military aircraft and armaments to Indonesia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our policy on defence sales to Indonesia is based on the principle that all sovereign states enjoy the right, under article 51 of the United Nations charter, to defend themselves. This is a right that we claim for ourselves and it would be inconsistent and discriminatory to deny it to others. All applications for export licences are, none the less, subject to strict controls and scrutinised on a case by case basis. For example, if we believe a prospective purchase is likely to be used for repressive puorposes against a civilian population, the application is rejected.

  Vatican (Diplomats)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on which countries exclude their Roman Catholic diplomats from the position of their representative to the Holy See.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have no such information.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons for his Department's policy of excluding Roman Catholic diplomats from appointment as Her Majesty's ambassador to the Holy See.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no such policy.

  EU Accession
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps were taken to ensure the people and Government of Gibraltar will enjoy the same or comparable citizenship, rights, liabilities and other opportunities that are extended to the people of
  429
  the Aland Islands under the provisions of the treaty of accession to the European Union and which are consequent upon Finland acceding to be European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The EC treaty applies to Gibraltar by virtue of article 227.4 of the treaty. It enjoys a special status within the Community negotiated at the time of United Kingdom accession. The common agricultural and fisheries policies do not apply to Gibraltar. Nor is Gibraltar obliged to levy VAT. In addition, Gibraltar is outside the Community customs territory and is a third country for the purpose of the common regime for imports. Community rules on the free movement of goods do not apply to Gibraltar.

  Article 28 of the Act of Accession provides that the EC treaties shall not apply to the Aland Islands unless the Finnish Government so declare, in which case their relationship to the Community will be governed by protocol 2 to the Act of Accession. The differences between the position of the Aland Islands and that of Gibraltar would reflect their different interests within the Community and the different nature of their relationship with the member state.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the people of the Aland Islands and of Svalbard will be represented in the European Parliament upon the accession of Finland and Norway to the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for the Governments of Finland and Norway respectively. We understand that arrangements for the representation of Norwegian residents on Svalbard and of the people of the Aland Islands in the European Parliament have yet to be decided.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the people of Svalbard will become citizens of the European Union consequent upon Norway acceding to the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Norwegian citizens who live on Svalbard will become citizens of the European Union on Norway's accession to the European Union. Svalbard itself will be excluded from the scope of the European Union treaties in accordance with protocol No. 7 of the accession treaty.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the expected cost and consequences to(a) the Commission, (b) the Parliament, (c) the Court of Justice and (d) other European Union institutions of both Bokmal and Nynorsk being given equal status as official languages of the institutions of the European Union's communities and institutions consequent upon the accession of Norway to the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no proposals to make Bokmal or Nynorsk official languages of the Union. Section XVIII of annex I of the Act of Accession, annexed to the accession treaty, will amend Council regulation 1 to include only Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish as new official languages subsequent to the entry into force of the treaty. The Kingdom of Norway has made a unilateral declaration—No. 38—stating that 430
  "in the written use of Norwegian as an official language…equal status must be given to Bokmal and Nynorsk".

  This declaration has no budgetary implications.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the consequences to(a) the European Union and (b) the United Kingdom of the declaration by the King of Sweden on open government and which are incorporated in the treaty of accession to the European Union and consequent upon Sweden acceding to the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Sweden's declaration in the Final Act attached to the accession treaty welcomes the development now taking place in the European Union towards greater openness and transparency. The declaration notes that open government is a fundamental part of Sweden's constitutional, political and cultural heritage. The Union's declaration in response takes note of the Swedish declaration and adds that the member states of the European Union take it for granted that, as a member, Sweden will fully comply with Community law.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the consequences for(a) The European Union and (b) the United Kingdom of the exchange of letters between the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission together with the assurances given, with regard to Swedish practices in the labour market and collective agreements, which are incorporated in the treaty of accession to the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The exchange of letters between the Kingdom of Sweden and the Commission are mentioned in a declaration by Sweden annexed to the Final Act. The Final Act does not form part of the treaty of accession and the declarations annexed to it do not create binding legal obligations. There are no consequences either for the European Union or for the United Kingdom of the assurances given in the exchange of letters, which simply confirm that Swedish practices in labour market matters are compatible with the agreement of the Eleven.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the citizenship rights of the Sami people consequent upon the accession of Norway, Sweden and Finland to the European Union; and what special provisions have been made for their interests to be represented in the European Parliament and promoted in other European Union institutions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As citizens of Norway, Sweden and Finland, the Sami people will become citizens of the European Union on the accession of these states to the European Union. No special provisions have been made for their representation in the European Parliament, but their interests are recognised in protocol No. 3 of the accession treaty. Norway also made a declaration on the subject.

  Iran
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations has been made by Her Majesty's Government and the EU
  431
  to the Government of Iran regarding the recent murders in Iran of the Reverend Medhi Dibaj and the Reverend Tateos Michaelian; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  With our full support, the EU is asking the Iranian authorities for an immediate and complete investigation into these deplorable murders. We await further information and Tehran's response before considering how to follow up. We are also urgently seeking information about at least two other Christian pastors who are reportedly detained in Iran.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made by the European Union to the Government of Kenya about the importance of democratisation in Kenya; and what has been the response of the Kenyan Government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Members of the EU have continued to work together in monitoring developments in Kenya. With our partners, we stress the importance of democracy at every suitable opportunity.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the United Nations Security Council meeting on Angola on 30 June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Security Council meeting on 30 June adopted a further resolution, UNSCR 932, on Angola. This called on UNITA to accept immediately and unreservedly the compromise proposals for a settlement put forward by the United Nations mediators, and already accepted by the Angolan Government. If, by 31 July, UNITA has not complied, the Security Council has declared its readiness to impose additional sanctions against UNITA as indicated in UNSCR 864. The resolution also extended the mandate of UNAVEM II for three months until 30 September.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Use
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce high occupancy vehicle lanes on the motorway system, with particular reference to the M3, M4 and M25.

  Mr. Key
  I am keeping in touch with experience in the Netherlands where a high-occupancy vehicle lane has recently been introduced, and I am considering. whether there is scope to introduce a trial here. I have no current proposals for high-occupancy vehicle lanes on the M3, M4, or M25.

  Departmental Costs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 513, if he will provide a detailed breakdown into component parts and costs of the £147·496 million listed under "Other".
  432
  Mr. MacGregor
  The detailed breakdown of the item described as "Other" running costs of my Department for 1993–94 is as follows:

  Activity

  £'000s

  Travel and Subsistence and other Personnel costs

  20,038

  Training

  3,330

  Estate Running Costs

  254

  Office Services, Postage and Carriage

  32,955

  Telecommunications

  8,042

  Office Machinery/Computer Hardware and Software maintenance

  5,224

  Vehicle Running Costs

  989

  Consultants and Agency Costs

  7,417

  Vehicle Licensing Inspection and Testing Costs

  2,082

  Publicity and Advertising

  1,215

  Payments to Auxiliary Coastguard and Merchant Navy Reserve

  1,689

  Medical Services

  1,862

  Bank Charges

  319

  DVLA Post Office Costs

  59,195

  Sale of Vehicle Registration Marks

  1,970

  Refund of Driver Testing Fees

  915

  Total

  147,496

  Charing Cross (Train Departures)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many trains left Charing Cross station on schedule between 4.30 pm and 7.30 pm on Monday 6, Tuesday 7, Wednesday 8, Thursday 9 and Friday 10 June; how many were late or cancelled; what was the length of lateness in each case on each day; and what was the cause of lateness or cancellation in each case;

  (2) how many trains left Charing Cross station on schedule between 4.30 pm and 7.30 pm on Tuesday 31 May, Wednesday 1 June, Thursday 2 June and Friday 4 June; how many trains were late or cancelled; what was the length of lateness in each case on each day; and what was the cause of lateness or cancellation in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have written to the hon. Member with the information requested and placed a copy of the information in the Library.

  Birmingham North Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those who have seen the report of the public inquiry into the Birmingham north relief road in 1988.

  Mr. Key
  A small number of civil servants involved in the 1988 public sector scheme.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the west coast main line reinvestment project under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Freeman
  Railtrack, together with a private sector consortium—West Coast Main Line Development Company Ltd—have, since April, been carrying out a study aimed at producing design standards for the line and recommending funding options for the project, consistent with the objectives of the private finance initiative. The study is expected to be completed by the end of the year. A further competition will then be held for the contract to undertake the upgrading work. That contract is expected to be let in mid-1995 and the works will start as soon as possible thereafter.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost, up to 31 March, of setting up the offices of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising and of the Rail Regulator.

  Mr. Freeman
  Total costs incurred before the formal appointments of the Franchising Director and the Rail Regulator, which include the main setting-up costs, were £1 million and £0·5 million respectively. Subsequent expenditure by OPRAF and ORR until 31 March 1994, a small proportion of which included setting up costs, was £2·4 million and £1·5 million respectively.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to his Department of preparing for rail privatisation up to 31 March, identifying separately the costs of external advisers and consultants.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's costs on rail privatisation up to 31 March 1994 are £19·8 million, comprising £3·3 million running costs and £16·5 million external consultancy costs.

  Sabrina Bridge
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice was sought from his Department by Worcester city council in connection with the new cycle and footbridge over the River Severn, now known as the Sabrina bridge.

  Mr. Key
  None. The new bridge is part of the local highway network and consultations with the Department would not have been required.

  Transport of Children
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to seek to legislate at the earliest opportunity to prevent any public service vehicle available for hire from being used by school-age children without a seat belt each and in numbers greater than one person per fixed seat; and if he will do this without awaiting EU legislation.

  Mr. Key
  This is part of the wider review which is under active consideration.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the seating of school age children on buses to travel to and from school and to go on school outings, and on the wearing of seat belts, for each year group up to 16 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Public Service (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984 permit three seated children under the age of 14 to share a double seat and count as two passengers. This concession has been considered as part of the review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all seats in minibuses and coaches recently undertaken by my officials, the report and conclusions of which we hope to publish before the summer recess.

  Seat belts must be worn in minibuses with an unladen weight not exceeding 2,540 kg, and specified front seats in larger vehicles. We will be reviewing the position on wearing, but it raises complex issues of responsibility in the case of children on larger vehicles.
  434
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his officials are having with their counterparts in the European Union with a view to legislating to fit seat belts and keep numbers to one person to each fixed seat on all public service vehicles available for hire for school-age children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Following the announcement of the European Commission's strategy for improving bus and coach safety, my officials are taking part in the discussions of the working group convened to consider the technical requirements for belts in vehicles which do not carry standing passengers.

  The number of passengers who may be carried is a question for individual member states.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Highways Agency was established; for what reasons it was established; what are its annual administrative costs, including salaries; what were the equivalent annual costs when the work was done within the Department of Transport; what are the annual salaries and emoluments of, respectively, the chief executive and other principal officers; and what were the annual salaries and comparable payments of those officials who carried out analogous and comparable duties when the work was done within his Department.

  Mr. Key
  The Highways Agency was established on 1 April 1994 as an executive agency of the Department of Transport, to manage and maintain the existing motorway and trunk road network in England and to deliver the Government's road programme. The agency was established as part of the Government's next steps programme, with the aim of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of this major executive business. Copies of the agency's framework document and 1994–95 business plan have been placed in the Library.

  The total provision for administration cost in 1994–95 including pay is £87·8 million, compared to provision of £88·5 million in 1993–94. The chief executive was appointed for a five-year term following an open competition at a salary of £100,000 per annum. He is also eligible for performance pay. The chief executive has additional responsibilities to those of the grade 2 officer who headed the former Highways Safety and Traffic Command within the Department. Other principal officers who transferred to the Highways Agency did so on existing civil service terms and conditions.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Railway Lines (Vandalism)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent discussions he has had with Railtrack concerning the educational programmes carried out by the safety and school liaison unit; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent discussions have taken place with Railtrack and other interested parties concerning the implementation of anti-vandalism programmes; arid if he will make a statement;

  (3) what proposals he has to combat and contain acts of vandalism on railway lines in (a) Strathclyde, (b) Scotland and (c) Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answers 6 July 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Railtrack chairman and board members to discuss a wide range of matters.

  On 1 April Railtrack took over from British Rail responsibility for the trespass and vandalism campaign, including the related programme of school visits. It has made it clear that it is committed to continuing with, and indeed developing further, this activity, both to broaden its approach beyond schools, and to ensure that specific problems are targeted in the areas where they are most likely to occur.

  Railtrack, working closely with British Rail and the British Transport police, is identifying what further action might be employed to deter the specific problem of vanalism, with particular focus on the known urban problem areas. It is in the course of consulting individuals and organisations to explore the potential for more effective measures.

  In Scotland both ScotRail and the BTP are actively involved in promoting safety on the railways through the safety and schools liaison unit and their involvement in the crucial crew exercises which bring home to school children the dangers.

  Rail Safety
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reported cases of endangering safety or obstructions there were in each of the past five years in(a) Strathclyde, (b) Scotland and (c) Great Britain; how many of these led to criminal convictions; what was the range of sentences imposed upon those convicted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 6 July 1994]: Information for 1989 to 1991 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. That which is available is as follows:

  Endangering Safety

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number of reported offences

  Strathclyde

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  15

  Scotland

  n/a

  21

  8

  19

  30

  Great Britain

  1,067

  848

  783

  642

  754

  Number of convictions

  Strathclyde

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  6

  Scotland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  6

  Great Britain

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  71

  436 Sentencing Over the past two year period 1992 and 1993, the range of sentencing that has been implemented for the offence of Endangering Safety is as follows:

  Fines

  From £12 to £500.

  Community Service

  From 50 to 200 hours.

  Imprisonment

  From 28 days to 2 years.

  Probation

  From 6 months to 3 years.

  Apart from the above, some cases have involved the accused being bound over, conditionally discharged or sent to an attendance centre.

  Obstruction

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number of reported offences

  Strathclyde

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  134

  135

  Scotland

  N/a

  446

  333

  238

  223

  Great Britain

  4,070

  3,426

  2,955

  2,585

  2,537

  Number of convictions

  Strathclyde

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  1

  5

  Scotland

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  3

  5

  Great Britain

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  49

  78

  Sentencing Over the two-year period 1992 and 1993, the range of sentencing implemented for the offence of obstruction was as follows:

  Fines

  From £10 to £350

  Community Service

  From 40 to 200 hours

  Imprisonment

  From one day to 12 months

  Probation

  From six months to 12 months

  Apart from the above, some cases involved the accused being bound over, conditionally discharged or sent to an attendance centre.

  Access to Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many requests for environmental information under the Access to Environmental Information Regulations 1992 have been received by his Department; how many were answered within two months; how many were refused; and on what grounds in each case.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 6 July 1994]: This Department does not keep central records of the number of individual requests for information it receives. We do, however, look very carefully at every case for refusal.

  In the period up to 30 June 1994, the Department gave nine refusals on the grounds of confidentiality of the proceedings of a public authority.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War (Pesticides)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what pesticide sprays were used to protect service men and women in Operation Granby prior to and during the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hanley
  One United Kingdom tented camp in Al Jubay1 was sprayed with FICAM, a non-organophosphate residual insecticide. During the conflict itself spray cans of a standard NATO issue pyrethroid "knock-down" insecticide were available to United Kingdom troops, but were little used because the winter insect population was low. No organophosphate insecticide or pesticide sprays were used by British forces.
  437
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the uniforms of soldiers serving in Operation Granby in the Gulf war were impregnated with pesticides.

  Mr. Hanley
  During Operation Granby some desert issue combat clothing for British forces was impregnated with a commercially available, non-organophosphate, insecticide. The impregnation, which has Health and Safety Executive approval, was performed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and supervised by service environmental health staff.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 231, when he obtained a copy of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament blueprint report; and what conclusions he has reached following the examination of its proposals.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department received a copy of the report in early June. While complete and general nuclear disarmament is a desirable ultimate goal we do not believe that the proposals in the CND report represent a realistic approach.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacant dwellings are owned by his Department in England and Wales; and how many have been empty(a) more than six months and (b) more than 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records are not maintained precisely in the form requested. However, the following information is available as at 31 March 1994:

  Number

  Married quarters

  Total vacant

  8,839

  Vacant under 12 months

  7,643

  Vacant over 12 months

  1,196

  Civilian houses

  Total vacant

  43

  Vacant under six months

  18

  Vacant over six months

  25

  In addition, 1,407 vacant married quarters and 20 vacant civilian houses were in the process of being sold. Information on the length of time these properties have been vacant could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of vacant dwellings owned by his Department by constituency.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not held in the form requested and to provide it for the area requested could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount of capital receipts his Department has received from vacant dwellings in each of the past five financial years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Capital receipts from the sale of surplus dwellings in each of the past five financial years was as follows:
  438

  year

  £

  1989–90

  48,000,000

  1990–91

  46,000,000

  1991–92

  54,000,000

  1992–93

  42,000,000

  1993–94

  29,300,000

  Not all these properties were vacant as some were sold to tenants. Figures for vacant dwellings alone could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacant dwellings owned by his Department in each parliamentary constituency in Devon and Cornwall have been vacant for(a) more than six months and (b) more than 12 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records are not maintained precisely in the form requested. However, the following information is available as at 31 March 1994.

  Married quarters

  Vacant under 1 year

  Vacant over 1 year

  North Devon

  27

  —

  Exeter

  7

  —

  Honiton

  12

  2

  Plymouth Devonport

  180

  2

  Plymouth Drake

  52

  —

  Plymouth Sutton

  54

  —

  Torridge and West Devon

  11

  —

  Falmouth and Camborne

  —

  —

  North Cornwall

  89

  84

  St. Ives

  72

  11

  South East Cornwall

  6

  —

  Civilian houses

  Vacant under six months

  Vacant over six months

  Plymouth Devonport

  —

  6

  Former married quarters in the process of being sold

  Vacant under one year

  Vacant over one year

  Honiton

  1

  2

  Plymouth Devonport

  —

  17

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost of providing security for empty MOD dwellings in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of providing security for surplus MOD dwellings in the process of being sold, which is carried out under contract, was approximately £231,000 for financial year 1993–94. Such figures are not held centrally, however, and because of changes in numbers of surplus dwellings from year to year, figures for earlier years could be provided, if available, only at disproportionate cost. Security for empty dwellings which are not surplus to requirements is provided by the Ministry of Defence police and military patrols and costs are therefore not separately identifiable.
  439
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many unoccupied dwellings are held by his Department in Scotland; and what plans he has to find occupants for, or dispose of the properties.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 March 1994 my Department owned 798 vacant dwellings in Scotland, of which 736 were married quarters and 62 were civilian houses. The majority of the vacant married quarters were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work, allocated to service families due to move in shortly, or held for unit deployments. The vacant civilian houses are leased from the local authority and we are negotiating their early return. In addition, a further 18 vacant civilian houses arid 60 married quarters were in the process of being sold. Any properties which become surplus to our long-term requirements will be sold in line with our normal policy.

  Irregular Tenancy Notices
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many irregular tenancy notices have been served on former service personnel who have left the armed services at the end of their tour of duty;

  (2) how many irregular tenancy notices have been issued in relation to dwellings owned by his Department in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The services do not issue irregular tenancy notices as service personnel are not tenants in the normal sense, but hold a licence to occupy a married quarter. All occupants of service married quarters are given notice of the date when their entitlement to occupy the quarter ceases and that they will become irregular occupants and will be liable for a "damage for trespass" charge in lieu of rent if the quarter is not vacated on the given date.

  In the last five-year period, numbers of personnel leaving the Army at the end of their tour of duty who were irregular occupants was as follows:

  Number

  1989

  858

  1990

  925

  1991

  740

  1992

  598

  1993

  630

  This compares with the total number of irregular occupants of Army married quarters, which can include redundees, estranged families or civilians, in the last five-year period which was as follows:

  Number

  1989

  1,622

  1990

  1,748

  1991

  1,468

  1992

  1,525

  1993

  1,811

  Figures detailing the status of Navy and RAF irregular occupants are not readily available, and total numbers are produced only quarterly. At the end of March in each of the last five years the total number of irregular occupants was as follows:
  440

  Navy

  RAF

  1989

  497

  233

  1990

  507

  214

  1991

  516

  285

  1992

  394

  228

  1993

  289

  227

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what disciplinary measures have been taken against those individuals responsible, following the verdict by the Army board of inquiry that Corporal Malcolm of the Royal Tank Regiment has been subject to racial discrimination.

  Mr. Hanley
  Disciplinary action was not considered appropriate on this occasion.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what disciplinary measures were taken against the individuals responsible following the decision by the Army board that Private Stephen Anderson of the Devon and Dorset Regiment had been subject to racial abuse;

  (2) what disciplinary measures were taken against the individuals responsible following the decision by the Army board of inquiry that Private Evans of the 1st battalion of the Royal Regiment of Wales had been subject to racial abuse.

  Mr. Hanley
  Those responsible were dealt with summarily by their commanding officer. It is not our practice to comment on the disciplinary action taken by commanding officers in such cases.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details of running cost expenditure since 1988–89 are set out in table 3 of the "Departmental Report by the Ministry of Defence—The Government's Expenditure Plans—1994/95 to 1996/97", Cm 2501. Running costs in 1987-88 are shown in the previous year's departmental report. It is not possible to provide a regional breakdown of these expenditure totals from financial management information available to the Department.

  Lockheed
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people from his Department's Procurement Executive have visited the United States of America to see any of the Lockheed facilities since 1 January 1993; what was the duration of those visits; and what was the total cost to public funds.

  Mr. Aitken
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Scottish Reserve Forces
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is proposing to make cuts in the Scottish reserve forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no current plans for reductions in the Scottish elements of the royal naval or royal marines
  441
  reserves, beyond the changes to the royal naval reserve announced to the House on 18 October, Official Report, column 39. A review of the royal marines reserve has recently been undertaken, however, although no decisions have been taken.

  Following reductions in the number of maritime patrol aircraft, the establishments of the three Royal Auxiliary Air Force maritime headquarters units, including No. 2 (City of Edinburgh) marine headquarters unit, have been reviewed. The new establishment for No. 2 MHU exceeds the recruited strength, so there will be no loss of personnel.

  An announcement is to be made shortly about proposals for the Territorial Army as a whole.

  unit

  SER

  Sub Unit/Detachment locations

  Title

  Location

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  1

  TA Elements of HQ 51 Highland Brigade

  Perth

  2

  TA Elements of HQ 52 Lowland Brigade

  Edinburgh

  3

  RHQ Scottish Yeomanry

  Edinburgh

  Ayr, East Kilbride, Cupar

  4

  BHQ 1/51 Highland

  Perth

  Kirkbaldy, Dundee, Forfar

  5

  BHQ 2/51 Highland

  Elgin

  Wick, Kirkwall, Dingwall, Peterhead, Keith, Turriff, Inverness, Stornoway, Fort William, Aberdeen, Lerwick, Laurencekirk

  6

  BHQ 3/51 Highland

  Stirling

  Cumbernauld, Falkirk, Dumbarton, Dunoon

  7

  BHQ 1/52 Lowland

  Glasgow

  Glasgow, Ayr

  8

  BHQ 2/52 Lowland

  Edinburgh

  Motherwell, Edinburgh, Galashiels, Dumfries

  9

  RHQ 105 Regiment Royal Artillery

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow, Arbroath, Glenrothes

  10

  RHQ 71 Engineer Regiment

  Glasgow

  Paisley, Irvine, Edinburgh, Coatbridge, Dundee

  11

  RHQ 76 Engineer Regiment

  Pitreavie (Dunfermline)

  Kinloss, Aberdeen, Lossiemouth, Leuchars

  12

  RHQ 32 Signal Regiment

  Glasgow

  Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh

  13

  2 Squadron 39 Signal Regiment

  Dundee

  14

  A Squadron 23 SAS

  Hamilton

  15

  D Squadron 23 SAS

  lnvergowrie

  16

  3 Flight AAC

  Turnhouse

  17

  RHQ Scottish Transport Regiment

  Dunfermline

  Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Glenrothes, Glasgow, Irvine, Grangemouth

  18

  125 Ration Squadron

  Glasgow

  19

  205 Field Hospital

  Glasgow

  Edinburgh

  20

  225 Field Ambulance

  Dundee

  21

  252 Field Ambulance

  Aberdeen

  22

  243 Provost Company

  Edinburgh

  442
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members the Royal Auxiliary Air Force has in Scotland; and where the squadrons are based.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 1 April 1994, 217 Royal Auxiliary Air Force personnel were serving with units based in Scotland. The two units are based at No. 2 (City of Edinburgh) maritime headquarters unit, Edinburgh—106 personnel—and 2622 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment, at RAF Lossiemouth—111 personnel.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members the Territorial Army has in Scotland; and where the regiments are based.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently 6,290 members of the TA serving in Scotland. The locations of the regiments are as follows:
  443

  unit

  SER

  Sub Unit/Detachment locations

  Title

  Location

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  23

  23 Security Company

  Livingston

  24

  RHF(T) Band (West Lowland)

  Glasgow

  25

  51 Highland Band

  Perth

  26

  RS(T) Band (East Lowland)

  Edinburgh

  27

  Aberdeen University Officer Training Corps (UOTCs)

  Aberdeen

  28

  Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt UOTC

  Edinburgh

  29

  Glasgow and Strathclyde UOTC

  Glasgow

  30

  Tayforth UOTC

  Dundee

  St. Andrews, Stirling

  31

  4 Parachute Regiment

  (RHQ in Leeds)

  Irvine, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen,Glenrothes

  32

  23 Security Company

  Livingston

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the annual budget for reserve forces is allocated to funding the Scottish reserves in total and per force; and how much that amount is.

  Mr. Hanley
  Planned expenditure on the reserve forces based in Scotland for 1994–95 is £16,874,000. This is 13 per cent. of the total for the reserve forces of £129,800,000. The breakdown by force is as follows:

  Force

  Planned expenditure in Scotland

  £ million

  As percentage of total for Force

  Royal Naval Reserve

  0·882

  10

  Royal Marines Reserve

  0·422

  19

  Territorial Army

  14·901

  13

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force and Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve

  0·669

  16

  Notes:

  1. The above figures are for pay, allowances, earnings related national insurance contributions and training bounties for Reserve personnel. They exclude such items as equipment development, fuel, ammunition, accommodation and utilities, food and transport, for which information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  2. The total figures for the TA exclude the home service part-time element of the Royal Irish Regiment.

  3. All figures for the TA exclude non-regular permanent staff.

  4. Figures for the RAF Reserves in Scotland take account only of pay; other costs cannot be apportioned.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members the royal naval reserve/royal marine reserve has in Scotland; and where they are based.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 1 July the Royal naval Reserves had 530 members in Scotland based at HMS Dalriada, Greenock—167; HMS Scotia, Pitreavie—325; and HMS 444
  Claverhouse, Edinburgh—38. The Royal Marines Reserve have 199 members in Scotland based in Royal Marine detachments sited as follows: Glasgow—110; Dundee—37; Greenock—28; and Grangemouth—24. HMS Claverhouse is, however, due to close on 31 July as part of the changes to the Royal Naval Reserve announced to the House on 18 October, Official Report, column 39. Where possible, arrangements have been made for reservists at HMS Claverhouse to transfer to other units.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with the chief executive of the Atomic Weapons Establishment in relation to the announcement of 300 voluntary redundancies requested at Aldermaston, Burghfield and Cardiff; and what proposals he has to encourage diversification into civilian uses for AWE resources and skills.

  Mr. Aitken
  Staffing levels at AWE are a matter for the operating contractor—Hunting-BRAE. However, my Department was aware that the chief executive of AWE would be announcing the introduction of a voluntary redundancy scheme. Hunting-BRAE is fully conscious of the opportunities and benefits that future diversification can offer and these will be actively pursued when they do not conflict with my Department's primary requirement of maintaining the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons capability.

  Project Horizon
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current progress of Project Horizon, the common new generation frigate.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am pleased to announce that, at a ceremony in Lancaster House today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Defence
  445
  Ministers of France and Italy—Mr. Francois Leotard and Mr. Cesare Previti, respectively—signed a memorandum of understanding, and its preliminary supplement, concerning the joint development of this project. The memorandum of understanding will govern the design, development and production of the frigate, including its combat system, with the exception of the anti-air warfare system which will be covered by a separate MOU. We have also set in hand important preliminary work, under the preliminary supplement to the MOU, to be completed during the course of the next year. The successful completion of this work will enable us to take the project forward to the next stage of commitment, which will be embodied in the AAW system MOU and an additional supplement to the frigate programme MOU. It remains our firm intention to achieve the best possible value for money for the British taxpayer.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation he has made of the reports by the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), as chairman of the Scientific and Technical Committee of the North Atlantic Assembly, endorsed by the North Atlantic Assembly meeting in Copenhagen in October last year, on multinational control over, and reductions of, nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Departmental comments on the draft report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton on nuclear proliferation, and North Atlantic Assembly resolution 245 on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, were produced at the time of the autumn session of the NAA. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Trees
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sums have been expended on grants for planting of(a) broadleaf trees and (b) conifers in England in each of the last three years under the various incentive schemes in force; and what has been the average area of each planting on which grant was paid in those years.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is set out in the table.

  Planting Grants Paid

  £000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Conifer

  2,400

  1,300

  1,300

  Broadleaf

  5,100

  8,900

  11,500

  TOTAL

  7,500

  10,200

  12,800

  Average Area Approved (hectares)

  2·4

  3·4

  3·7

  Arable Land
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has sought as to whether Germany, France and Italy have complied with their requirement to set aside arable land; and if she will publish the outcome of her inquiries.
  446
  Mr. Jack
  The arable area payments scheme does not impose any set-aside target at a national level. It is for individual farmers to decide whether or not to apply for payments under the main scheme, although if they do they must set aside part of the area on which they are claiming. The area set aside in individual member states each year will therefore depend entirely on the numbers of farmers who have eligible land and who apply under the main scheme. Provisional Commission figures for the 1992–93 scheme year indicate that 1,063,000 hectares of land were set aside under the scheme in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1,589,000 hectares in France and 207,000 hectares in Italy. This is the appropriate proportion of the total area on which farmers in those countries claimed area payments under the main scheme and the figures are close to earlier Commission estimates of the total areas likely to be set aside in each member state.

  Live Sheep Imports
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received from Birmingham city council about the import of live sheep, and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend has been in correspondence with Birmingham city council and encouraged it to take rigorous action over any infringements of the law. A report prepared by the council into the circumstances surrounding imports of sheep from Spain and Poland has been received. It describes the investigations made, and the prosecutions taken.

  EC Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations are in receipt of the canned stewed beef produced from the 6,840 tonnes of beef released by the EC from British intervention stocks.

  Mr. Jack
  A list of organisations designated to distribute beef under the EC surplus food scheme in 1993–94 is available in the Library of the House.

  Forestry
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions she has drawn from the advice of the forestry review group; when she intends to publish proposals for the future management of the Forestry Commission estate in England; and how she intends to consult in England about these conclusions.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19 May 1994 to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang),Official Report, column 552.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide a table showing the running costs of her Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Jack
  The information asked for can be obtained only at disproportionate cost to the Department.

  German Pork
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will take steps to ban the import of pork and pork products from Germany in view of the outbreak of swine fever in German pig herds; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Community rules to control classical swine fever and prevent the risk of spread of the disease via exports are already in place. Responsibility for enforcing those rules lies with the member state of origin. The situation in Germany, including any need for additional measures, is kept under close review by the EC standing veterinary committee. I shall myself continue to monitor the matter to ensure the disease does not spread to this country.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Conspiracy to Defraud
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the validity of the guidance to Crown prosecutors about charging practice in relation to the offence of conspiracy to defraud contained in previous editions of the code for Crown prosecutors.

  The Attorney-General
  Following advice from the Criminal Law Revision Committee, guidance on the use of the offence of conspiracy to defraud was incorporated into the code for Crown prosecutors following enactment of section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

  The code for Crown prosecutors has recently been revised. It is intended primarily to provide guidance on the general principles which are applied in the conduct of prosecutions. Detailed guidance on particular offences is not appropriate to the revised code and the paragraphs relating to consiracy to defraud no longer appear. However, the policy and practice of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to alleged offences of conspiracy to defraud remains unchanged.

SCOTLAND

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in support of construction of a three-towns bypass in the area of Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston; and if he will make a statement on the current status of this project.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Within recent years the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) have made several representations in favour of a bypass for Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston. Support has also been expressed formally by five representative bodies and two individual correspondents.

  The consulting engineer reviewing the alignment and standards for the new road is expected to report to my officials later this summer. Subject to a satisfactory proposal, the design and preparation of the preferred scheme will then be taken forward.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities his Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no facilities for parking bicycles outside my office in Whitehall. We can, however, arrange for bicycles to be held for visitors by pre-arrangement.

  Al
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his proposals for the route of the new dual carriageway section of the Al trunk road between Haddington and Dunbar.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The dualling of the Al between Haddington and Dunbar was one of the major schemes which my right hon. Friend recently announced that he expected to start between April 1995 and March 1997 in his statement about progress on trunk road construction and proposed starts in Scotland in the next three years. My officials plan to publish draft road orders in August this year. A public exhibition will be held to explain the details of the proposals. Further progress will, of course, be dependent on the public reaction to the proposals and availability of finance.

  Youssef Chaabane
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the Prime Minister's answer of 5 July,Official Report, columns 127–28, what further investigation the Lord Advocate plans into the case of Youssef Chaabane, accused in a Beirut court of murdering a Jordanian diplomat; and whether he is sending Crown Office lawyers to Beirut.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate does not announce publicly what investigative steps he may or may not take in any particular criminal investigation. Criminal investigations could not proceed on any proper basis if they were carried out in such a manner. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has sent, and will send, Crown Office lawyers wherever it is necessary and appropriate to send them.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table updating the information provided by written answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 30 April 1991,Official Report, columns 154–57, relating to the paid appointments within his patronage and the annual remuneration paid to each one.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 4 July 1994]: Information concerning the level of any salary or fee paid to a member of a nationalised industry, non-departmental public body or NHS bodies sponsored by my Department as at 1 September 1993 is listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. The next edition of "Public Bodies" with updated information will be published in December. Information regarding appointments made jointly with other Ministers is no longer held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday play schemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to Childcare Solutions and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The Scottish Office has its own on-site nursery at East Craigs, Edinburgh which is registered for 15 full-time places and operates on a mix of full and part-time attendance. Those using the facility meet its running costs with accommodation costs being met by my Department. The Scottish Office takes occupancy of a major new building at Victoria Quay, Leith in the autumn of 1995. Plans for this building include a 30–35 place nursery.

  Staff in my Department can also place children in the central holiday playscheme in Edinburgh. The facilities are available to staff on a full repayment basis although my Department makes an annual contribution of around £500 to the playscheme to help with the cost of outings. Discussions are also taking place about access to a playscheme in the Glasgow area.

  Additionally, my Department has several other ways in which it helps its staff with child care responsibilities, including special leave, paternity leave, flexible working patterns and career breaks. Although my Department does not subscribe to Childcare Solutions or make use of child care vouchers, it is shortly to introduce a scheme whereby staff can make claims for the reimbursement of reasonable and unavoidable child care costs incurred when the normal working pattern is disrupted.

  Staff (Attitude Survey)
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what surveys of the views, opinions and attitudes of the staff of his Department have been carried out in the last two years; and if he will place copies of the findings in the Library.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: As part of its commitment to achieving the Investors in People standard, the Scottish Office carried out an attitude survey of 20 per cent. of staff in August 1992.

  Information on the key points emerging from the survey was distributed to all staff and a fuller executive summary was made available on request. I have arranged for copies of these documents to be placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION

  Primary Schools (Inspections)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools, by local education authority, have been informed that they will have Ofsted inspections in the autumn term; how many of them have been informed by Ofsted of the registered inspector 450
  appointed to carry out their inspection; how many of them have been told by Ofsted that their inspection is deferred until the spring term of 1995; and how many of them have neither been informed of their registered inspector nor been told of deferment.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Professor Sutherland to write to the hon. Member.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the years prior to 1993–94 HM inspectorate maintained small local offices in each region, but the Department as currently constituted does not operate a regional structure; its headquarters functions are carried out in offices in London and Darlington. In 1993–94 the Department's running costs expenditure was split broadly 70:30 between the London and Darlington offices. Detailed information on the actual spend between each office for that and previous years could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The net administration costs for the Department in each year since 1987–88 were as follows:

  £'000s

  1987–88

  58,594

  1988–89

  67,402

  1989–90

  74,501

  1990–91

  85,067

  1991–92

  102,414

  1992–93

  108,370

  1993–94

  88,370

  The 1993–94 figure is provisional and reflects changes in the machinery of Government.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what numbers and percentages of pupils attend grant-maintained secondary schools in England; and what are the figures for each local education authority;

  (2) what numbers and percentages of pupils attend grant-maintained schools in England; and what are the figures for each local education authority;

  (3) what numbers and percentages of secondary schools are grant-maintained in England; and what are the figures for each local education authority;

  (4) what number and percentage of schools are grant-maintained in England; and what are the figures for each local education authority;

  (5) what numbers and percentages of primary schools are grant-maintained in England; and what are the figures in each local education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the tables.
  451

  Table A: Number and percentage of pupils at grant-maintained schools

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary and Secondary

  Lea area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Corporation of London

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Camden

  0

  0·0

  2,340

  22·3

  2,340

  11·1

  Greenwich

  239

  1·1

  0

  0·0

  239

  0·7

  Hackney

  87

  0·5

  0

  0·0

  87

  0·4

  Hammersmith

  0

  0·0

  1,229

  20·6

  1,229

  8·2

  Islington

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  530

  8·4

  629

  19·6

  1,159

  12·2

  Lambeth

  1,250

  6·6

  3,363

  53·0

  4,613

  18·2

  Lewisham

  361

  1·8

  0

  0·0

  361

  1·2

  Southwark

  1,265

  6·0

  2,765

  30·3

  4,030

  13·3

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0·0

  907

  7·8

  907

  2·8

  Wandsworth

  515

  3·0

  6,487

  72·8

  7,002

  26·8

  Westminster

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barking

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barnet

  776

  3·3

  9,836

  53·4

  10,612

  25·1

  Bexley

  643

  3·5

  3,581

  24·9

  4,224

  12·8

  Brent

  1,002

  4·5

  9,377

  75·7

  10,379

  30·0

  Bromley

  1,151

  5·6

  11,342

  68·0

  12,493

  33·6

  Croydon

  836

  3·2

  5,897

  40·5

  6,733

  16·5

  Ealing

  1,217

  4·4

  4,905

  44·6

  6,122

  15·9

  Enfield

  149

  0·6

  5,576

  32·1

  5,725

  14·1

  Haringey

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Harrow

  0

  0·0

  483

  6·1

  483

  1·8

  Havering

  0

  0·0

  3,813

  25·7

  3,813

  11·1

  Hillingdon

  2,602

  13·3

  11,467

  83·6

  14,069

  42·2

  Hounslow

  0

  0·0

  2,108

  15·0

  2,108

  6·3

  Kingston upon Thames

  191

  1·8

  2,859

  37·6

  3,050

  16·9

  Merton

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Newham

  0

  0·0

  556

  4·1

  556

  1·4

  Redbridge

  0

  0·0

  1,113

  7·4

  1,113

  3·3

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sutton

  799

  6·2

  6,591

  59·6

  7,390

  30·9

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0·0

  1,915

  17·3

  1,915

  6·2

  Birmingham

  1,717

  1·6

  14,621

  23·0

  16,338

  9·6

  Coventry

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Dudley

  381

  1·4

  4,458

  25·4

  4,839

  10·6

  Sandwell

  0

  0·0

  658

  3·7

  658

  1·3

  Solihull

  454

  2·3

  0

  0·0

  454

  1·4

  Walsall

  561

  2·0

  5,557

  29·0

  6,118

  12·9

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0·0

  2,348

  14·9

  2,348

  5·7

  Knowsley

  0

  0·0

  719

  8·0

  719

  2·6

  Liverpool

  0

  0·0

  2,260

  7·6

  2,260

  2·8

  St. Helens

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sefton

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Wirral

  0

  0·0

  2,031

  9·8

  2,031

  3·9

  Bolton

  364

  1·3

  2,755

  16·6

  3,119

  7·1

  Bury

  223

  1·3

  0

  0·0

  223

  0·8

  Manchester

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Oldham

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Rochdale

  1,115

  5·2

  1,053

  8·3

  2,168

  6·4

  Salford

  0

  0·0

  413

  3·6

  413

  1·2

  Stockport

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Tameside

  0

  0·0

  2,332

  18·1

  2,332

  6·5

  Trafford

  0

  0·0

  2,892

  25·4

  2,892

  9·2

  Wigan

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barnsley

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Doncaster

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Rotherham

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sheffield

  943

  2·2

  1,893

  7·1

  2,836

  4·0

  Bradford

  539

  1·3

  5,080

  11·1

  5,619

  6·5

  Calderdale

  660

  3·3

  6,337

  48·3

  6,997

  21·3

  Kirklees

  0

  0·0

  1,266

  5·1

  1,266

  2·1

  Leeds

  51

  0·1

  1,138

  2·6

  1,189

  1·1

  Wakefield

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Gateshead

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0·0

  212

  1·5

  212

  0·7

  South Tyneside

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Avon

  0

  0·0

  1,569

  2·9

  1,569

  1·2

  Bedfordshire

  629

  1·5

  8,568

  19·6

  9,197

  10·7

  Berkshire

  2,242

  3·7

  7,389

  16·0

  9,631

  9·0

  Buckinghamshire

  2,126

  3·5

  9,844

  27·3

  11,970

  12·3

  Cambridgeshire

  1,911

  3·3

  15,109

  37·5

  17,020

  17·2

  Cheshire

  418

  0·5

  2,395

  3·8

  2,813

  1·9

  452 453

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary and Secondary

  Lea area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Cleveland

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Cornwall

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Cumbria

  2,399

  5·6

  10,617

  34·6

  13,016

  17·8

  Derbyshire

  1,671

  2·0

  15,275

  26·8

  16,946

  12·0

  Devon

  285

  0·4

  4,571

  8·0

  4,856

  3·5

  Dorset

  415

  0·9

  9,537

  23·6

  9,952

  11·7

  Durham

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  East Sussex

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Essex

  18,774

  15·4

  66,322

  70·1

  85,096

  39·3

  Gloucestershire

  2,820

  6·6

  21,584

  66·2

  24,404

  32·3

  Hampshire

  3,911

  3·0

  15,780

  20·7

  19,691

  9·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0·0

  3,558

  7·6

  3,558

  3·8

  Hertfordshire

  1,564

  1·9

  20,565

  30·7

  22,129

  14·8

  Humberside

  257

  0·3

  0

  0·0

  257

  0·2

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Kent

  4,877

  3·9

  51,187

  50·8

  56,064

  24·7

  Lancashire

  578

  0·4

  6,593

  8·0

  7,171

  3·4

  Leicestershire

  0

  0·0

  3,222

  5·5

  3,222

  2·3

  Lincolnshire

  6,219

  12·7

  16,323

  44·2

  22,542

  26·3

  Norfolk

  2,623

  4·2

  8,608

  21·4

  11,231

  11·0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Northamptonshire

  3,072

  6·1

  9,197

  20·7

  12,269

  13·0

  Northumberland

  0

  0·0

  632

  2·2

  632

  1·2

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0·0

  1,831

  2·9

  1,831

  1·2

  Oxfordshire

  81

  0·2

  0

  0·0

  81

  0·1

  Shropshire

  307

  0·9

  4,324

  17·5

  4,631

  7·7

  Somerset

  374

  1·1

  398

  1·4

  772

  1·2

  Staffordshire

  49

  0·1

  4,298

  6·3

  4,347

  2·7

  Suffolk

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Surrey

  3,546

  4·6

  9,915

  25·5

  13,461

  11·7

  Warwickshire

  0

  0·0

  4,669

  18·9

  4,669

  6·6

  West Sussex

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  2,915

  6·2

  13,216

  39·2

  16,131

  20·0

  Total England

  84,684

  2·0

  504,258

  17·6

  588,942

  8·4

  Table B: Number and percentage of schools which are grant-maintained

  LEA area

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary and Secondary

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Corporation of London

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Camden

  0

  0·0

  2

  18·2

  2

  3·8

  Greenwich

  1

  1·3

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·1

  Hackney

  1

  1·6

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·4

  Hammersmith

  0

  0·0

  1

  10·0

  1

  2·1

  Islington

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2

  7·4

  1

  25·0

  3

  9·7

  Lambeth

  5

  6·5

  5

  50·0

  10

  11·5

  Lewisham

  1

  1·4

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·2

  Southwark

  5

  6·6

  5

  35·7

  10

  11·1

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0·0

  1

  6·7

  1

  1·1

  Wandsworth

  2

  2·8

  6

  60·0

  8

  9·8

  Westminster

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barking

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barnet

  2

  2·2

  10

  47·6

  12

  10·9

  Bexley

  3

  4·6

  5

  29·4

  8

  9·8

  Brent

  3

  4·7

  10

  76·9

  13

  16·9

  Bromley

  3

  3·8

  12

  70·6

  15

  15·8

  Croydon

  2

  2·0

  7

  35·0

  9

  7·6

  Ealing

  4

  6·0

  5

  41·7

  9

  11·4

  Enfield

  1

  1·4

  5

  29·4

  6

  6·9

  Haringey

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Harrow

  0

  0·0

  1

  10·0

  1

  1·6

  Havering

  0

  0·0

  4

  21·1

  4

  4·3

  Hillingdon

  11

  15·3

  12

  80·0

  23

  26·4

  Hounslow

  0

  0·0

  2

  14·3

  2

  2·6

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  2·8

  4

  40·0

  5

  10·9

  Merton

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Newham

  0

  0·0

  1

  7·1

  1

  1·2

  Redbridge

  0

  0·0

  1

  6·7

  1

  1·4

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sutton

  3

  7·0

  8

  57·1

  11

  19·3

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0·0

  2

  12·5

  2

  2·6

  Birmingham

  6

  1·8

  17

  21·3

  23

  5·6

  Coventry

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  454 455

  LEA area

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary and Secondary

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Dudley

  1

  1·2

  6

  27·3

  7

  6·7

  Sandwell

  0

  0·0

  1

  5·0

  1

  0·8

  Solihull

  1

  1·4

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·2

  Walsall

  2

  1·9

  6

  28·6

  8

  6·4

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0·0

  3

  15·0

  3

  2·5

  Knowsley

  0

  0·0

  1

  9·1

  1

  1·3

  Liverpool

  0

  0·0

  3

  8·3

  3

  1·3

  St. Helens

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sefton

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Wirral

  0

  0·0

  2

  9·5

  2

  1·6

  Bolton

  1

  1·0

  3

  18·8

  4

  3·3

  Bury

  1

  1·4

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·2

  Manchester

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Oldham

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Rochdale

  4

  5·3

  1

  7·1

  5

  5·6

  Salford

  0

  0·0

  1

  5·6

  1

  0·9

  Stockport

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Tameside

  0

  0·0

  3

  16·7

  3

  3·0

  Trafford

  0

  0·0

  4

  25·0

  4

  4·3

  Wigan

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Barnsley

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Doncaster

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Rotherham

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sheffield

  6

  3·6

  2

  6·5

  8

  4·1

  Bradford

  3

  1·8

  6

  6·8

  9

  3·6

  Calderdale

  4

  4·4

  7

  43·8

  11

  10·3

  Kirklees

  0

  0·0

  2

  5·9

  2

  1·0

  Leeds

  1

  0·4

  1

  2·2

  2

  0·7

  Wakefield

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Gateshead

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0·0

  1

  3·8

  1

  1·1

  South Tyneside

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Avon

  0

  0·0

  2

  3·3

  2

  0·5

  Bedfordshire

  3

  1·4

  10

  14·1

  13

  4·5

  Berkshire

  7

  2·5

  10

  16·9

  17

  5·1

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  2·1

  10

  22·2

  16

  4·8

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  2·2

  16

  37·2

  22

  7·1

  Cheshire

  3

  0·7

  3

  4·4

  6

  1·1

  Cleveland

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Cornwall

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Cumbria

  18

  5·8

  14

  33·3

  32

  9·2

  Derbyshire

  7

  1·6

  14

  23·0

  21

  4·1

  Devon

  1

  0·2

  6

  9·4

  7

  1·4

  Dorset

  1

  0·5

  10

  17·9

  11

  4·3

  Durham

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  East Sussex

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Essex

  72

  12·4

  70

  66·0

  142

  20·7

  Gloucestershire

  11

  4·2

  27

  62·8

  38

  12·5

  Hampshire

  13

  2·2

  18

  19·1

  31

  4·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0·0

  5

  6·6

  5

  1·4

  Hertfordshire

  9

  2·1

  23

  25·6

  32

  6·1

  Humberside

  2

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  2

  0·5

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Kent

  18

  3·2

  62

  45·6

  80

  11·3

  Lancashire

  2

  0·3

  8

  7·5

  10

  1·4

  Leicestershire

  0

  0·0

  5

  6·3

  5

  1·2

  Lincolnshire

  23

  7·8

  24

  38·1

  47

  13·2

  Norfolk

  13

  3·3

  12

  23·1

  25

  5·6

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Northamptonshire

  9

  3·3

  12

  18·8

  21

  6·3

  Northumberland

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·6

  1

  0·5

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0·0

  3

  3·7

  3

  0·6

  Oxfordshire

  1

  0·4

  0

  0·0

  1

  0·4

  Shropshire

  1

  0·5

  6

  16·2

  7

  2·8

  Somerset

  2

  0·9

  1

  2·6

  3

  1·1

  Staffordshire

  2

  0·5

  5

  5·9

  7

  1·4

  Suffolk

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Surrey

  14

  3·8

  13

  25·5

  27

  6·4

  Warwickshire

  0

  0·0

  8

  21·6

  8

  2·8

  West Sussex

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  12

  4·1

  16

  36·4

  28

  8·3

  TOTAL

  336

  1·8

  594

  16·2

  930

  4·1

  456 457
  Notes:

  1. All figures for numbers of pupils are derived from the Department's January 1993 Schools Census. In calculating the percentage of primary schools part-time pupils in grant-maintained schools are excluded.

  2. Figures for number of maintained schools are derived from the Department's January 1993 Schools Census. The number of grant-maintained schools is correct as of 1 July.

  3. The percentages represent the number of pupils at grant-maintained schools as a proportion of the number of pupils at all maintained schools, and the number of grant-maintained schools as a proportion of the number of all maintained schools.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority the number and percentage of children in each grant-maintained school with statements of special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  A table containing the latest available information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority those grant-maintained schools which had specific units or support services for children with special educational needs when they attained grant-maintained status; and whether those units or support services are still available.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not have a comprehensive central record of specific units and support services for children with special educational needs at grant-maintained schools.

  Children (Chronic Allergies)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance has been issued by his Department to representatives of the teaching profession, regarding the need to cater for school children with chronic allergic conditions who may require the immediate administration of adrenalin injections while at school; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  General guidance on health care in schools for children with medical conditions is given in the Department's circular 11/90 "Staffing for Pupils with Special Educational Needs". The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs offers guidance to schools on the circumstances in which they might have recourse to the child health services.

  The statutory responsibility for securing health care for children in school rests with district health authorities. Teachers could not be required in law to administer medicines or to give injections. However, teachers have a general duty of care towards children in schools, and it is therefore reasonable to expect a teacher to react promptly if a child with a chronic allergy condition is suddenly taken ill. Such action could include assisting with the injection of adrenaline, if the teacher is competent and willing to do so and has been appropriately trained.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost to the Exchequer of 11 years of compulsory education in local authority-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1992–93, local education authorities spent an average of £1,857 per pupil in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools. LEA spending returns do not allow us to distinguish the amount spent on compulsory education from within that total.
  458
  Most central Government support for local authorities is in the form of unhypothecated revenue support grant. It is not therefore possible to identify the proportion of local authority education spending met by the Exchequer.

  School Meals
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of children receiving free school meals in each local education authority area; what percentage that is of the total number of children receiving school meals in that area; and what are the national totals in each case;

  (2) when he expects to publish the results of his Department's annual survey of school meals relating to 1993.

  Mr. Forth
  The results of the survey are contained in "Statistics of Education for Schools 1993" published on 30 June. A copy is available in the Library.

  The table covers day pupils receiving free school meals in maintained schools in each local education authority in England in January 1993.

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Corporation of London

  108

  64

  Camden

  5,576

  52

  Greenwich

  9,544

  59

  Hackney

  10,210

  64

  Hammersmith

  4,880

  49

  Islington

  7,943

  61

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,960

  47

  Lambeth

  9,820

  57

  Lewisham

  9,312

  53

  Southwark

  10,804

  61

  Tower Hamlets

  15,113

  71

  Wandsworth

  7,404

  48

  Westminster

  5,327

  56

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,877

  41

  Barnet

  5,258

  25

  Bexley

  3,705

  30

  Brent

  7,892

  52

  Bromley

  4,392

  28

  Croydon

  7,192

  35

  Ealing

  7,877

  47

  Enfield

  5,912

  36

  Haringey

  8,368

  54

  Harrow

  2,212

  46

  Havering

  3,015

  27

  Hillingdon

  2,952

  40

  Hounslow

  5,576

  35

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,232

  35

  Merton

  3,171

  40

  Newham

  9,608

  63

  Redbridge

  4,149

  28

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,822

  30

  Sutton

  2,128

  22

  Waltham Forest

  7,626

  47

  Birmingham

  51,990

  53

  Coventry

  10,638

  53

  Dudley

  6,498

  37

  Sandwell

  10,656

  53

  Solihull

  4,201

  26

  Walsall

  10,146

  41

  Wolverhampton

  8,830

  54

  Knowsley

  10,329

  73

  Liverpool

  25,071

  60

  St. Helens

  5,379

  37

  459

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage1

  Sefton

  7,683

  43

  Wirral

  12,158

  47

  Bolton

  7,480

  33

  Bury

  3,809

  27

  Manchester

  26,722

  62

  Oldham

  9,041

  39

  Rochdale

  7,600

  41

  Salford

  9,558

  47

  Stockport

  5,817

  26

  Tameside

  7,067

  38

  Trafford

  4,987

  35

  Wigan

  8,148

  35

  Barnsley

  6,496

  39

  Doncaster

  10,465

  34

  Rotherham

  7,224

  43

  Sheffield

  14,489

  45

  Bradford

  20,249

  43

  Calderdale

  5,341

  35

  Kirklees

  10,230

  32

  Leeds

  17,281

  33

  Wakefield

  7,708

  31

  Gateshead

  6,193

  45

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  11,109

  51

  North Tyneside

  5,262

  33

  South Tyneside

  6,691

  45

  Sunderland

  10,292

  44

  Isles of Scilly

  11

  12

  Avon

  20,979

  38

  Bedfordshire

  13,055

  28

  Berkshire

  10,083

  25

  Buckinghamshire

  6,325

  41

  Cambridgeshire

  11,896

  35

  Cheshire

  19,067

  29

  Cleveland

  23,819

  43

  Cornwall

  10,664

  33

  Cumbria

  8,231

  23

  Derbyshire

  18,994

  20

  Devon

  20,494

  34

  Dorset

  7,053

  40

  Durham

  17,065

  32

  East Sussex

  13,248

  37

  Essex

  25,885

  34

  Gloucestershire

  8,592

  37

  Hampshire

  26,038

  36

  Hereford and Worcester

  7,932

  32

  Hertfordshire

  14,812

  22

  Humberside

  23,091

  30

  Isle of Wight

  3,215

  41

  Kent

  29,238

  33

  Lancashire

  37,774

  37

  Leicestershire

  17,676

  30

  Lincolnshire

  6,201

  31

  Norfolk

  12,146

  32

  North Yorkshire

  7,997

  17

  Northamptonshire

  8,802

  41

  Northumberland

  6,440

  24

  Nottinghamshire

  26,539

  38

  Oxfordshire

  7,172

  28

  Shropshire

  8,305

  26

  Somerset

  6,188

  39

  Staffordshire

  22,188

  31

  Suffolk

  9,327

  27

  Surrey

  9,463

  17

  Warwickshire

  7,560

  28

  West Sussex

  9,249

  27

  Wiltshire

  8,709

  31

  ENGLAND

  1,141,326

  37

  Number of day pupils who received a free school meal as a proportion of all school meals taken.

  Information on pupils is derived from the annual returns made to the Department in January each year (Form 7).

  Includes self-governing (GM) state schools.

  Includes full-time and part-time day pupils in maintained schools, including nursery and special schools, who had a school meal on the Census day.

  Excludes boarding pupils and pupils in hospital schools.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the schemes he has approved for the local management of special schools submitted to him by local education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  No. Section 42(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires LEAs to publish their own LMS schemes. The manner in which they must do so is prescribed in the Education (Publication of Schemes for Financing Schools) Regulations 1993.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new full-time equivalent jobs have been created in Clwyd during the past 15 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Comprehensive information is not collected on new jobs created. However, offers of regional selective assistance accepted during the 15 months ending on 31 May 1994 were forecast to create 2,032 jobs in Clwyd.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the percentage of hedgerows and total hedgerow stock in 1984 which has subsequently been lost; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A survey carried out by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology as part of the Department of the Environment's 1990 countryside survey found that in 1984 there was an estimated stock of 71,000 km of hedgerow in Wales, but, by 1990, there had been a net loss of 18,000 km or 25 per cent. of the total stock. The main reason for this loss was poor management and as a result the Countryside Council for Wales in 1992, at the request of the Welsh Office, established the hedgerow renovation scheme.

  The most recent survey of hedgerows in England and Wales will shortly be completed, covering the years 1990–93. This will provide details of more recent changes in stock levels.

  Snowdonia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times Snowdonia mountain rescue services were called into action in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1993, there were 174 incidents in Snowdonia involving mountain rescue services.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those hospitals and medical establishments that have national health service trust status in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not currently available in the form requested. Actual details on hospitals,
  461
  health centres and clinics, vehicles and other accommodation, assets and equipment that is either vested in, or leased by, national health service trusts in Wales are contained in the individual transfer of assets orders, not all of which have been finalised.

  From 1 April 1994 there are 24 operational national health service trusts in Wales. The details are:

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  Swansea NHS Trust

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  Glan Clwyd District Hospital NHS Trust

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  Gwynedd Community Health NHS Trust

  Nevi11 Hall and District NHS Trust

  Velindre NHS Trust

  Rhondda Health Care NHS Trust

  Derwen NHS Trust

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS Trust

  Bicycles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what facilities his Department provides for the parking of the bicycles of visitors to its offices in Westminster.

  Mr. Redwood
  There is no provision for any types of transport outside my Department. However, arrangements can usually be made with the Ministry of Defence to park bicycles in its car park close by.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the schemes he has approved from the local management of special schools submitted to him by local education authorities.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. The extension of the local management of schools

  Grant maintained

  All grant maintained primary and Secondary schools

  Primary schools

  secondary schools

  1Number

  2Per cent.

  1Number

  2Per cent.

  1Number

  2Per cent.

  Clwyd

  442

  1·1

  3,349

  12·3

  3,791

  5·6

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  220

  0·5

  1,385

  4·7

  1,605

  2·2

  Gwynedd

  218

  1·1

  0

  0

  218

  0·6

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Powys

  36

  0·3

  0

  0

  36

  0·2

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  2,971

  10·9

  2,971

  4·4

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  933

  4·0

  933

  1·5

  Wales

  916

  0·3

  8,638

  4·5

  9,554

  2·0

  1Pupil numbers as at January 1993 (which is the latest available date), and are for all schools which were grant maintained as at April 1994.

  2Percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total number of full time and part time pupils in the same sector for the LEA.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what numbers and percentages of schools are grant-maintained in Wales; and what are the figures for each local eduction authority;
  462
  arrangements to special schools was deemed a significant variation to a local education authority's LMS scheme and as such it is for the local authority to publish the changes in accordance with section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Education (Publication of Schemes for Financing Schools) Regulations 1993.

  Remploy Centres
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Remploy centres he has visited since his appointment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has responsibility for this organisation.

  Road Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many road improvement schemes are currently being planned for(a) Gwynnedd, (b) Clwyd, (c) Dyfed, (d) Powyd, (e) Gwent, (f) South Glamorgan, (g) Mid Glamorgan, (h) West Glamorgan and (i) Wales as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  "Roads in Wales", to be published shortly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, will set out our priorities and plans for improvements to trunk roads.

  Schools Statistics
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what numbers and percentages of pupils attend grant-maintained secondary schools in Wales; and what are the figures for each local education authority;

  (2) what numbers and percentages of pupils attend grant-maintained primary schools in Wales; and what are the figures for each local education authority;

  (3) what numbers and percentages of pupils attend grant-maintained schools in Wales; and what are the figures for each local education authority.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers and percentages of pupils attending grant-maintained schools in Wales in each local education authority are shown in the table:

  (2) what numbers and percentages of primary schools are grant-maintained in Wales; and what are the figures for each local education authority;
  463
  (3) what numbers and percentages of secondary schools are grant-maintained in Wales; and what are the figures for each local education authority.

  Grant maintained

  All grant maintained primary and Secondary schools

  Primary schools

  secondary schools

  Number1

  Per cent. 2

  Number1

  Per cent. 2

  Number1

  Per cent. 2

  Clwyd

  2

  0·8

  4

  12·5

  6

  2·2

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent

  1

  0·5

  3

  9·1

  4

  1·6

  Gwynedd

  1

  0·5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Powys

  1

  0·9

  0

  0

  1

  0·8

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  3

  11·5

  3

  1·6

  West Glamorgan

  0

  0

  1

  3·7

  1

  0·5

  Wales

  5

  0·3

  11

  4·8

  16

  0·8

  1As at April 1994.

  2Percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total number of schools in the same sector for the local education authority.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the grant-maintained schools which had specific units or support services for children with special educational needs when they attained grant-maintained status and indicate whether these units or support services are still available.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Details of the grant-maintained schools in Wales were given in my reply of 9 December 1993 and my right hon. Friend's reply of 4 July 1994 to the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). All GM schools had support services when they were approved for grant-maintained status, and Ysgol Bryn Elian and St. Cyres had designated special needs units attached to them. The schools' change of status has in no way affected their availability.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the number and percentage of children in each grant-maintained school with statements of special educational needs.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers and percentages of children in grant-maintained schools with statements of special educational needs in Wales in each local education authority are shown in the following table. This information was not collected from individual schools in 1993.

  Number1

  Per cent.2

  Clwyd

  0

  0

  Dyfed

  0

  0

  Gwent

  8

  0·3

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  Powys

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  31

  1·3

  WALES

  39

  0·2

  Source: Form STATS2.

  1As at January 1993.

  2Percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total number of
  464
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers and percentages of grant maintained schools in Wales in each local education authority are shown in the table

  children with statements of special educational needs (including those being educated outside the local education authority area in which they are registered) in the local education authority.

  NHS Trusts (Pay Awards)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from NHS trusts in Wales on the effect of the implementation of the current health service pay award on the numbers of staff the trusts employ.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 13 May, column 268.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from local authorities or their associations in relation to the execution of their duties to staff affected by staff transfer orders and other procedures occasioned by the reform of local government, particularly with respect to compliance with the duties of employees under the acquired rights directive and the collective redundancies directive of the European Union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received several such representations, which I will take into account in guidance to the Staff Commission for Wales. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State set out the Government's view on how the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—which implement the acquired rights directive—apply to local government reorganisation in Standing Committee A on 17 May.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when final results of the 1992 Welsh social survey relating to the Welsh language will be published.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Preliminary results relating to the Welsh language were issued in a Welsh Office statistical press release on 29 July 1993. An article on Welsh language aspects of the survey was published in the autumn 1993 edition of "Statistical News", issue 102,
  465
  a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It is planned to produce a further report later this year. This timetable is later than that originally envisaged due to slower than expected progress with other work arising from the survey.

  Training and Enterprise Councils.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he expects that his Department's financial appraisal and monitoring team will complete(a) the review of the monitoring and sample checking systems of the Welsh training and enterprise councils in relation to operating agreement compliance and (b) the review of the non-vocational qualifications claims under output-related funding of training provided by JHP Training in Wales and their verification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Department's financial appraisal and monitoring team reviews the systems of training and enterprise councils to ensure compliance with the operating agreement and that standards are maintained.

  The review of NVQ claims following training provided by JHP Training in Wales will be completed by the end of August.

  Ambulances (Bull Bars)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will instruct South and East Wales Ambulance trust to remove the bull bars fitted to their vehicles and instruct all ambulance services that the fitting of bull bars to emergency vehicles is prohibited on the grounds of safety.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust has already made arrangements to remove bull bars from 10 ambulance vehicles. Elsewhere in Wales bull bars are not fitted to front-line ambulance vehicles.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  St. Ethelburga's Church
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to fund the rebuilding of St. Ethelburga's church from the millennium fund or the proceeds of the national lottery.

  Mr. Sproat
  The responsibility for the allocation of lottery proceeds is a matter for independent distributing bodies accountable to Parliament. These bodies—the Sports Councils, the Arts Councils, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Millennium Commission and the National Lottery Charities Board—will issue full guidance notes for applicants in the autumn. Those interested in receiving grants from the national lottery will need to apply to the relevant distributing body.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations he has had with representatives of the film industry.

  Mr. Brooke
  Last year I held a series of 10 consultative meetings with all sectors of the film industry to consider the state of the industry and how the level of investment in British film production might be raised. I have 466
  subsequently had discussions with a number of key industry figures. I will announce the Government's conclusions in due course.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how he intends to improve the accountability of the Arts Council.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have explored with the chairman of the Arts Council ways in which the council's accountability can be improved. The council has agreed a programme to implement a number of proposals, including an annual Arts Council lecture, twice-yearly public meetings outside London and a series of meetings on each of the different art forms. I welcome these proposals, as a positive move to improve public understanding of the council's operations and decisions.

  Cross-media Ownership
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on Government policy towards cross-media ownership.

  Mr. Brooke
  I announced on 3 January that I would be reviewing the rules which restrict cross-media ownership. Ministers will be considering a report by officials during the summer. The timing of an announcement about the outcome will depend on a number of factors, including the nature of those recommendations and any legislative implications.

  Science Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to help fund the extension to the science museum.

  Mr. Sproat
  Any request for extra funds from the science museum will be considered when I decide the grant-in-aid allocations for the museums and galleries sponsored by my Department. These will be announced at the time of the Budget.

  Competitive Sports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Sports Council regarding the development of competitive sports.

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Sports Council regularly to discuss matters of mutual concern, including the development of competitive sports.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives he intends to take to implement an effective United Kingdom ban on the availability and use of anabolic steroids in sports.

  Mr. Sproat
  In 1993–94, the four sports councils spent over £910,000 on their programmes to combat drug abuse in sport and carried out nearly 4,000 tests. The availability of anabolic steroids is already controlled under the Medicines Act 1968 and the Government are currently considering whether to introduce further controls.

  Televised Sporting Events
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he plans legislation to widen the list of those sporting events which are ensured a showing on a terrestrial television channel.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall consider what the National Heritage Select Committee says in its report on sports sponsorship and television coverage which was published on 6 July.

  Industrial Heritage Sites
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for National Heritage how many sites of industrial national heritage he has visited in the last six months; and if he proposes to make additional funding available to such sites.

  Mr. Brooke
  Over the past six months I have visited two sites relating to our industrial heritage: the Quarry Bank Mill museum in Styal, Cheshire, and the Tiverton museum in Devon, with its lace machine gallery.

  On the question of funding, my Department makes substantial resources available each year to English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Both organisations offer grants towards the preservation of our industrial heritage and in so doing have made significant contributions in Burnley, for example, towards the development of Queen Street Mill, as the hon. Member will be aware. The additional resources for the heritage expected from the national lottery will substantially increase the scope for preserving the best of our industrial past.

  Arts (Disabled People)
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps his Department is taking, via its sponsored bodies, to improve access to the arts for disabled people.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) earlier today.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects the first distribution of funds generated by the national lottery to take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I expect the bodies responsible for the distribution of national lottery proceeds to invite the first applications for funding from the beginning of 1995. The first funds should be distributed to successful applicants shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his estimate of the benefits disability organisations will derive from the national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  Organisations for the disabled stand to gain considerably from the net proceeds of the national lottery. They will be able to apply for lottery funding for any project which is on or connected with the arts, sport or national heritage; is for a charitable purpose; or is to mark the year 2000 or beginning of the third millennium.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to help senior citizens living alone with their television licence fee.

  Mr. Brooke
  As the Government have made clear on many occasions, we are sympathetic to pensioners who find difficulty in meeting the cost of the licence fee, but we do not consider the licence fee a suitable instrument of social policy.

  Children's Play Organisations
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to ensure that children's play organisations are able to receive directly funds from the national lottery.

  Mr. Sproat
  It is likely that the children's play projects will be eligible for funding from a number of the lottery distributing bodies. Guidance notes explaining the precise eligibility criteria will be published by these distributors later in the year.

  Departmental Strategy Document
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish a strategy document for his Department's development and promotion of the nation's arts, culture, sport and heritage for the next five years.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department's annual report for 1993–94 sets out the Government's overall aims for the national heritage and outline plans, subject to annual review, for the three years ahead. The Department has also issued a short booklet "Preserving the Past, Shaping the Future", which describes the Department's aims in greater detail.

  Royal Palaces
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 346, what are the capital conservation and improvement schemes which the historic royal palaces agency will fund in 1994–95; how much will be spent on each; and how much will be spent on (a) building maintenance and (b) running costs.

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Historic Royal Palaces Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Beeton. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Beeton to Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 11 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage has asked me to reply to your Question about the capital conservation and improvement schemes which the Historic Royal Palaces Agency will fund in 1994–95; how much will be spent on each; and how much will be spent on (a) building maintenance and (b) running costs.
  Planned expenditure by Historic Royal Palaces on capital schemes in 1994–95 is £9·1 million in total (excluding VAT). Of this, the agency plans to spend approximately the following amounts on individual schemes costing more than £0·25 million:
  469

  £ million

  Agency Fire Prevention Programme

  Tower of London

  0·5

  Hampton Court Palace

  0·4

  Kensington Palace

  0·1

  Banqueting House

  0·2

  Kew Palace

  0·3

  Tower of London

  Jewel House and Waterloo Barracks

  3·2

  Renewal of Electricity Supply

  0·2

  Re-presentation of the White Tower

  0·2

  Catering—New Armouries Building

  0·1

  Hampton Court Palace

  Privy Garden Parterre

  0·7

  Restoration of Georgian Rooms

  0·6

  Car Parking

  0·1

  Catering

  0·1

  Kensington Palace State Apartments

  Restoration of King's Gallery

  0·3

  Planned expenditure in 1994–95 on building maintenance is £1·5 million and on running costs is £11·1 million (excluding VAT).

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory basis.

  Mr. Sproat
  None of the advisory bodies sponsored by my Department has a statutory basis. However, some of the executive bodies which are established by statute do have an advisory role. Examples are the British Tourist Authority, set up under the Development of Tourism Act 1969, and English Heritage, set up under the National Heritage Act 1983.

  Audio-described Television
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research has been undertaken by his Department into the availability of audio-described television for visually impaired people in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. A consortium, which includes the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Independent Television Commission, the BBC, and the ITV Association, is developing the AUDETEL project, which aims to provide an audio description commentary on television. I understand that the BBC and ITV hope to begin experimental transmissions within the next week.

  Gaelic Radio Service
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the development of a national Gaelic radio service in Scotland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since the publication of the Government's consultation document on the future of the BBC in November 1992, I have received representations about the development of a national Gaelic radio service in Scotland from three bodies: An Communn Gaidehealach, Commun na Ghaidhlig and Foram luchd-ionnsachaidh.

  GM Vauxhall Conference
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from the GM Vauxhall conference about its case for parity.

  Mr. Sproat
  I met Mr. William King, chairman, and Mr. Peter Hunter, secretary, of the GM Vauxhall Conference on 1 November 1993 to discuss the funding of safety improvements at GMVC club grounds. During the meeting the GMVC representatives formally submitted their case for parity. On 11 March this year they provided me with additional information.

  Sports Ground Safety
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what representations he has received from the Rugby Football League about their ground safety plans;

  (2) when he last met representatives of the Rugby Football League; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Sproat
  I met Mr. Rodney Walker, chairman, and Mr. Maurice Lindsay, chief executive, of the Rugby Football League on 22 November 1993 to discuss the funding of safety improvements at Rugby Football League grounds. I have received no further representations from the Rugby Football League since then, although I have had since further informal discussions.

  Football Trust
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the Pools Promoters Association about widening the remit of the Football Trust to include other sports, with particular reference to rugby and cricket.

  Mr. Sproat
  My officials held a meeting with representatives from the Pools Promoters Association on 22 June. Negotiations are at an early stage.

  British Library
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what areas will be covered by the most recent report he has commissioned on the British library project from Kennedy and Donkin; what will be the cost to the Exchequer; and if he will place the report in the public domain.

  Mr. Brooke
  The most recent report commissioned from Kennedy and Donkin Building Services Ltd. was for an independent survey of the mechanical and electrical services installed in the first phase of the new British Library building. The report investigated whether services as installed complied with statutory requirements and relevant British Standards and, including follow-up work, has cost £165,000. I do not plan to publish the report because it contains information which is potentially commercially sensitive.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact upon the arts and heritage in the United Kingdom of article 128 of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Brooke
  Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty gives the Community a role in support of member states' own
  471
  action in specified areas of culture without enabling it to interfere in national cultural affairs. I am awaiting Commission proposals on what incentive measures should be provided under the new article. These will also suggest how the Community may take cultural aspects into account in its action under other aspects of the treaty

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half-year ended 30 June of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax, together with information, where applicable, as to conditions or wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocation; and if he will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The information is as follows:

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Condition/wishes

  Two Vuillard paintings

  Fitzwilliam Museum (Femme Assisse Tasse de Cafe)

  Unconditional

  Ashmolean Museum (Le Dejeuner)

  Haydn Manuscripts

  National Trust

  Conditional

  Constable painting

  Bristol City Art Gallery

  Conditional

  Land at Sheringham Hall

  National Trust

  Conditional

  Number of visitors in 1992–93(millions)

  Number of visitors in 1993–94(millions)

  Percentage Increase/Decrease over the previous year

  British Museum

  6·914

  6·027

  -12·8

  Imperial War Museum

  1·148

  1·191

  +3·7

  National Gallery

  4·200

  4·015

  -4·4

  National Maritime Museum

  0·541

  0·530

  -2·0

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  1·207

  1·340

  +11·0

  National Portrait Gallery

  0·563

  0·792

  +41·0

  Natural History Museum

  1·729

  1·744

  +0·9

  Science Museum

  2·579

  2·671

  +3·6

  Tate Gallery

  2·185

  2·747

  +26·0

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  1·454

  1·577

  +8·5

  Wallace Collection

  0·198

  0·154

  -22·0

  Total

  22·718

  22·788

  +0·3

  It is not possible to identify the number of visitors to the Royal Armouries which at present forms part of the Tower of London.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Andrew Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art during the half-year ended 30 June specifying in each case the valuation and whether an item was exported or retained, with particulars in the latter event of the acquiring institution; and if he will list any items for
  472

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Condition/wishes

  Gainsborough portrait

  National Gallery

  Conditional

  Unallocated items

  Date accepted

  Hilliard miniature portrait

  15 December 1993

  J. F. Herring painting

  15 December 1993

  Wrest Park papers and albums

  15 December 1993

  Gomm furniture

  17 February 1994

  Ardizzone sketchbooks

  31 March 1994

  Lawrence portrait

  31 March 1994

  Three works by Picasso and one work by Klee

  27 April 1994

  George I silver kettle and stand

  24 April 1994

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Andrew Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the attendance figures for the financial year ended 31 March reported by the national museums and galleries for which he is responsible, broken down into the individual institutions, but including their outstations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for the preceding year.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The information is as follows:

  which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which is not yet decided, specifying in each case (a) the valuation and (b) the relevant time limit.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: The information is as follows:
  473

  Description of item

  Valuation (£)

  Outcome

  A marble effigy of the Duchesse de Nemours, by Chapu, dated between 1881–1883

  79,987·50

  Purchased by the Walker Art Gallery which is part of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  A pastel portrait of Caroline, 4th Duchess of Marlborough, by Gainsborough, c. 1767–72

  236,919·00

  Export licence granted

  A painting, 'Saint Sebastian Succoured by Two Angels', by Guercino, 1617

  400,000·00

  Decision deferred until after 31 July 1994

  A painting, 'The Miraculous Transportation of the Holy House of Loreto', by Tiepolo (1696– 1770)

  3,200,000·00

  Export licence granted

  A marble bust of Lady Harriet Pellew, by Thorwaldsen, 1817

  170,404·00

  Export licence granted

  A drawing 'A Canephorous in profile to the left', by in Parmigianino (1503–1540)

  90,000·00

  Decision deferred until after 7 August 1994

  An electroplated teapot, by James Dixon & Sons, designed by Dr. Christopher Dresser, 1879

  68,812·50

  Decision deferred until after 7 August 1994

  Child Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what provision his Department makes for child care facilities for staff; what is the extent of subsidy to nursery places and holiday playschemes; if his Department(a) subscribes to "Childcare Solutions" and (b) makes child care vouchers available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: In the 1993–94 financial year, this Department spent £1,650, excluding running costs, on child care. This provides one day care place in a nursery which opened in November 1993. In this instance the place is subsidised as it can be justified in value for money terms.

ENVIRONMENT

  Habitat and Species Directive
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the responses he has received following his consultation on the European habitat and species directive.

  Mr. Atkins
  Copies of the responses to my Department's consultation paper have already been placed in the Library.

  Species at Risk
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many species of(a) animal and (b) plant, which are native to the United Kingdom, were considered to be at risk in (a) 1964, (b) 1973, (c) 1983 and (d) 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, 39 British species or families of animal and 62 species of plant were protected in 1983, reflecting the Government's concern for those species at risk. In 1993, 94 species of animals were protected, and 168 species of plant. All wild birds in Britain are protected under the Act.

  In Northern Ireland, all wild birds are protected under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, with 17 vulnerable species of animal and 55 species of plant.

  Data on species at risk for 1964 and 1973 are not readily available.

  The lists of protected species may be reviewed and amended in responses to species' changing conservation status.

  Water Pollution, Worcester
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from Kay and Co. on the Worcestershire Water pollution incident; and what assessment he has made of the representations.

  Mr. Atkins
  A report on the water pollution incident in Worcestershire has been received from Kay and Co. In its continuing investigation of this incident, the drinking water inspectorate will assess the points raised in the report. In investigating an incident of this nature, the inspectorate needs to check each piece of information at source and obtain independent expert advice including on toxicology.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from Kay and Co. on the Worcestershire water pollution incident; and what assessment he has made of the representations.

  Mr. Atkins
  A report on the water pollution incident in Worcestershire has been received from Kay and Co. In its continuing investigation of this incident, the drinking water inspectorate will assess the points raised in the report. In investigating an incident of this nature, the inspectorate needs to check each piece of information at source and obtain independent expert advice including on toxicology.

  Westminster Council
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the press conference held by Mr. Magill on 11 January; and who meets it.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no information on this point.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost to date of the investigation into Westminster by Mr. Magill; and who will cover the costs.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from the Audit Commission that the cost of Mr. Magill's investigation into Westminster up to January 1994 was approximately £1¼ million. This has been paid by Westminster city council.
  475
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often a district auditor has called a press conference to announce provisional findings of an investigation; and what guidance is given in respect of the propriety of holding such conferences.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am not aware of any press conferences being given to announce an auditor's provisional findings and views, although I understand that press statements in such circumstances are common practice. This is a matter for the auditor's discretion; it is always open to him or her to take legal advice.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impartiality of Mr. Magill following the press conference on 11 January.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is not a matter for the Government. District auditors are appointed by the Audit Commission and are bound by the commission's code of audit practice, which imposes a duty of impartiality. However, I have no reason to believe that Mr. Magill is not acting impartially in his conduct of the investigation at Westminster city council.

  Land Use
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many applications for a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development have been refused by local authorities in England in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many applications for a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development have been accepted in England in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available. Although local authorities provide my Department with quarterly statistics of planning applications and decisions, these do not differentiate applications for certificates of lawfulness of existing use or development and other kinds of planning application. Moreover, the legislation providing for such applications did not come into force until July 1992.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the level of funding currently avilable to the Energy Saving Trust for programmes of work in 1994–95; what is the source of these funds; and what further resources are expected to be made available during the current financial year.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Energy Saving Trust is an independent organisation, but I understand that its programmes for 1994–95 are as follows:

  (a) The Trust's pilot scheme for local energy advice centres is expected to spend about £3m, derived from a variety of sources, including this Department;

  (b) The Trust's pilot scheme to promote domestic combined heat and power is expected to spend about £lm. This is funded by British Gas out of a corresponding increase in gas tariff income approved by OFGAS. Similar funding for any further schemes developed by the Trust and put forward by British Gas will be subject to decision by OFGAS;

  (c) Regional Electricity Companies (RECs) have been set energy efficiency targets by OFFER in consultation with the Trust, and may raise around £22m from
  476
  electricity franchise customers in 1994–95 to fund energy efficiency schemes. The savings achieved by schemes will be calculated by a method proposed by the Trust, and the Trust are devising various national schemes which would help achieve those savings.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the European Union's funds, programmes or grants available for local authorities or others to apply for in respect of the regeneration of deprived and depressed areas; how these link to the single regeneration budget; and where details of all these funds, programmes or grants, including the criteria for successful applications, are made publicly available.

  Mr. Baldry
  The principal sources of European funding available to local authorities and others in respect of the regeneration of deprived and depressed areas are two of the European Community structural funds. These are the European regional development fund and European social fund. As grants from the structural funds normally contribute part of the total cost of a project, the single regeneration budget will provide an important source of matching funding. Both programmes will be administered by Government offices in the regions.

  Regional plans for the Merseyside objective 1 area, covering 1994–99; objective 2—areas in industrial decline—for 1994–96; and objective 5b—rural areas—for 1994–99, are currently being considered by the European Commission. Once these have been agreed, the formal arrangements for considering project applications, such as selection criteria, can be determined. Details of EC regulations and decisions relating to the funds are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, and information about programmes and guidance for applicants, can be obtained from the Government offices in the regions.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent changes have been made to the composition and remit of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Atkins
  All appointments to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, except three, end on 31 August 1994. An announcement about membership of the Committee will be made in due course.

  Benefit Hostels
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government are yet in a position to say whether it will introduce a licensing system for benefit hostels.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on Friday 8 July,Official Report, column 327.

  Dog Fouling
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to announce the recommendations of his Department's advisory group on litter on national legislation for dog fouling and the
  477
  definition of dog mess as litter together with his response on a day on which the House is sitting before the end of July.

  Mr. Atkins
  I intend to publish before the recess the report of the Department's advisory group on litter as a consultation document and I shall be encouraging all interested parties to let me have their views on its recommendations.

  Multiple Occupation Houses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many fire inspections of bed-sitters and houses in multiple occupation have taken place in each year since 1983.

  Sir George Young
  This information is not held centrally. Local housing authorities are responsible for inspecting houses in multiple occupation for fire safety and other purposes.

  Captive Animals
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is his Department's policy to apply regulation 2(2) (a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 in relation to the state of any flora or fauna in the definition of the environment to animals held in captivity for scientific purposes.

  Mr. Atkins
  Where information falls within the scope of the regulations my Department's policy is to make it available unless there are good reasons, related to the regulations, for not doing so.

  Whether information about animals held in captivity for scientific purposes is environmental information is a mixed question of fact and law which would need to be determined on a case by case basis.

  Ofwat
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his policy on the spending by Ofwat of money on hiring Government relations consultants to communicate with hon. Members or others;

  (2) what reasons he has been given by the Director General of Ofwat for hiring Ludgate Land Government Relations in order to write to hon. Members; what was the cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  These are matters for the Director General of Water Services.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant in aid has been made available to each urban development corporation since 1981 as a cash sum(a) at current prices and (b) at 1981 prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  The amount of grant in aid made available to each urban development corporation between April 1981 and March 1994,(a) at current prices and (b) at 1981 prices, is set out in the table.
  478

  Grant in aid

  £ millions

  1At current prices

  1At 1981 prices

  Birmingham Heartlands

  14·9

  29·5

  Black Country

  222·7

  439·9

  Bristol

  64·1

  126·6

  Central Manchester

  59·0

  116·5

  Leeds

  44·7

  88·3

  London Docklands

  1,280·2

  2,528·2

  Merseyside

  229·6

  453·5

  Plymouth

  7·4

  14·6

  Sheffield

  65·1

  128·6

  Teesside

  206·2

  407·3

  Trafford Park

  133·7

  263·9

  Tyne and Wear

  197·8

  390·6

  1Actual grant in aid paid to urban development corporations has been adjusted in line with Her Majesty's Treasury's GDP Deflator Indices. Current prices are 1994–95 prices.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a table showing the running costs of his Department in each region for each year since 1987–88.

  Mr. Gummer
  Information in the form requested is not available, but details of total running costs between 1987 and 1994 are published in the Department's annual reports.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide guidance to local planning authorities on the relationship between planning and pollution controls.

  Mr. Curry
  I have today published planning policy guidance note 23 "Planning and Pollution Control", which clarifies the roles of the planning and pollution control systems. This stresses the need to avoid duplication of controls while improving dialogue between the different regulatory bodies. It provides guidance on the relevant issues planning authorities should consider in drawing up their development plans and in determining planning applications for certain industrial development proposals.

  It builds on the long-established policy that planning should not duplicate other legislative controls. We have significantly strengthened our pollution control systems in recent years. Planning authorities should therefore focus on the wider land-use implications of proposed development leaving the control of emissions to pollution control authorities.

  Trees (Environmental Damage)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the damage to Britain's trees caused by(a) ozone smogs and (b) acid rain.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 28 June I 994]: An assessment of the impact of air pollution on tree health in the United Kingdom was made in the terrestrial environment review group's second report, produced for my Department and published in April 1993. A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House. My

  479
  Department's critical loads advisory group and photochemical oxidants review group are currently engaged in a further assessment of the impacts of both acidic deposition and ozone on trees in the United Kingdom.

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what occasions in the last 10 years he or a Minister in his Department has given a direction to civil 480
  servants to award a contract against the advice of the civil service; what was the subject matter of the contract and its value; and when it was awarded.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: To the best of my knowledge, there have been no occasions over the last 10 years on which Ministers of this Department have given a direction to award a contract against the advice of the civil service.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to receive Her Majesty The Queen at the Royal Courts of Justice where she is to open the new East Wing in the afternoon of Wednesday 13th July.
Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence for Wednesday 13th July.

Third World: Reproductive Health Services
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give higher priority to the need for reproductive health services in the third world, particularly in view of the forthcoming 10-yearly United Nations International Conference on Population and Development.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, today is World Population Day. I am pleased to announce the second phase of our Children by Choice, Not Chance initiative begun in 1991. We expect to commit £100 million over the next two years to family planning and reproductive health programmes overseas. This commitment will fund at least 50 new projects increasing contraceptive choices for women and men and improving access to family planning.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer. In particular, I congratulate her on the substantial increase that she has announced. Does the noble Baroness agree that that adds to her authority even more to persuade our European colleagues to be even more intent on giving money towards population activities, and also as regards the UN Cairo conference on population and develop-ment? May we have some kind of assurance that the delivery of these additional services will actually meet the needs of those who most require them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his comments. We are most concerned to strengthen the resolve of others to follow the European Development Council resolution of 1992 to give more help where that is so badly needed. I can assure the noble Viscount that we shall be able to deliver
1508
on our programme because we now have resource centres which are so managed to produce greater flexibility to deliver and meet the needs of people in the developing world so that they gain access to advice in good time and also to give all the help they need.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that population is also linked to the fact that the people of these countries feel that they require a lot of children as an insurance for the future? The ODA, with the NGOs, works to improve the health and survival of those children. Does my noble friend agree that that is yet another way of helping to solve the problem?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. She is absolutely right that the ability to give nutritional assistance to young children is fundamental to persuading women of the sense of spacing their children and not constantly to have children in order to replace those who die through nutritional deprivation. We shall work with the non-governmental organisations to make sure that that is a positive feature of the programme.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I support what she is doing, but can she assure me that the West is not being hypocritical in this matter—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Wait for it!—bearing in mind that people in the industrialised and advanced countries consume 10 times as much of the world's resources as the people in the underdeveloped countries? Are we quite sure that we are not encouraging, by in vitro methods, a higher population growth in Western countries while insisting that third world countries have a lower population growth?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, one needs to get this matter into proportion. In no way will I be hypocritical on this too important subject. I can tell the noble Lord that 90 per cent. of the population growth in the coming 25 years will be in the developing world; 5 per cent. will be in the developed world. Therefore there is a very great difference in the proportions. But we need to give men and women choice about when they have their children and how they space them. That is exactly what they are asking of us, the donors. We have to have a programme that makes not only accessibility but affordability and availability the watchwords in what we do as regards population development.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the choice which she has mentioned is frustrated? In some countries population growth is caused to a great extent by poverty because the people concerned cannot afford to buy contraceptives. Can my noble friend say what steps have been and are being taken in order to attempt to solve that problem?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that where there is great

1509
poverty there is obviously family demand for more children to help the elderly members of the family in their later years. But we have found that by making all the social sector programmes work together—that is to say, literacy, adult literacy and general education availability —and where there is increasing prosperity in a country like Bangladesh, more women and men are asking for contraceptive help and advice. In fact, the birthrate is decreasing gradually. So one has to tackle all the problems at the same time, but one also has to inform and educate that the resources will not go round unless there is some restraint on population growth.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, to reinforce what the Minister has just said about choice for men and women, does she agree that providing choice for women is most important in many areas? Is not a fundamental part of that to improve the literacy and educational standards of women in developing countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, literacy and adult literacy have been shown in South-East Asia to be of fundamental importance to this whole question, but I ask the noble Lord not to believe that it should all be left to women. This morning at the Royal Society I was asked about the re-education of men. Although I would not attempt to undertake that, I believe that it is right for couples together to make choices about when to have children and the spacing between their children.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, while recognising the breadth of my noble friend's wisdom on this matter, will she concede that control of population does not necessarily mean economic growth? There have been several instances, such as Hong Kong and India, where there has been phenomenal economic and population growth—both countries that were less developed. Therefore, the one does not necessarily correlate with the other.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that my noble friend will be aware that I never speak of "population control". I do not believe that it is right. I do not believe that there should be coercion under any circumstances. In many countries where there has been economic growth one finds couples, particularly the women, wishing to make the choice to have fewer children and to space them. It is not a question of economic growth first and of re-education about family size second: the two go very much together.
Lord Rea: My Lords, while we fully appreciate the urgency of getting contraceptive supplies to those couples who want them but cannot afford them or cannot get them, does the Minister agree that that should not be at the expense of long-term development assistance to less developed countries? Does she agree that the stabilisation of the world's population is very much dependent, as has already been implied, on women's literacy and a low infant mortality rate which, in their turn, lead to the choice to have smaller families? Is not the Minister worried that the structural adjustment programmes (which have been imposed by the IMF and the World Bank) have so far neglected the social
1510
development of countries with the result that health and education, especially of poor people in Africa, have deteriorated in the past decade, thus acting precisely against the very development which would most help to limit population growth?
Baroness Chalker of Wallesey: My Lords, it is quite wrong of the noble Lord to try to divide long-term development assistance from the essential advice and help which is being asked for by over 100 million couples in the developing world. The very fact that so many now want contraceptive help is a good sign as far as their resources are concerned. Long-term development assistance goes hand in hand with assistance for planning more stable economies and happier families in the developing world.

Mr. Mordechai Vanunu
2.46 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What developments there have been in efforts to secure the release from long-term solitary confine-ment of Mr. Mordechai Vanunu since Baroness Chalker of Wallasey's answers to questions on 7th February (col. W.A. 108).
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I explained in my reply of 7th February, we have no formal standing to intervene. There is no evidence of any illegality in the UK and Mr. Vanunu appears to have been treated in accordance with the normal judicial process in Israel. Nevertheless, on humanitarian grounds we have raised with the Israelis the length of Mr. Vanunu's solitary confinement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on having done that. Is it not the case that there are grave doubts about the manner of Mr. Vanunu's arrest and the nature of his trial? Is it not a fact that solitary confinement over a long period of time is known to be inhumane and is not indulged in by civilised nations? Will the noble Baroness join me in believing that many of us are gravely disappointed in the Israeli Government for failing to recognise those facts? Is she aware that Amnesty International has recently joined the campaign to obtain the release of this man from his arduous and long-term imprisonment?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that following an Israeli internal review last July, there are improvements in the conditions under which Mr. Vanunu is held. He is held in solitary confinement because it is said that he would reveal further information if he were released, and for his own safety. I have had a report on the improved conditions under which he is held and they are quite substantial. We cannot comment on the way in which Mr. Vanunu was arrested, but there is no evidence that any UK law was broken at the time of his departure from this country. This is a matter for the Israeli authorities, not for us.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Israeli authorities sent us a note on the conditions under which people like Mr. Vanunu are held in their prison system, that we tried to get verification from Mr. Vanunu himself via the Israeli ambassador that those conditions were being observed, and that following two letters to him, we did not receive a reply? We do not know whether that was because the letters did not reach him or because he was unwilling to communicate with the outside world. Will not the Minister take the Israeli authorities' word for it that the conditions that they say are being observed in respect of Mr. Vanunu's detention are in fact operating, but ask whether somebody can go to see him to verify that on the spot?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am informed that Mr. Vanunu has a cell larger than the standard size in Israel, with an adjoining lavatory and shower. He has radio, television, video and a Walkman tape player. He receives books and newspapers without limitation. He can spend time out of doors daily. His lawyer may visit him in private at any time. His family can visit every two weeks. He is permitted visits by a member of the clergy. If that is so, we should be able to verify it through those people who are allowed to visit. I understand that when the Israeli Minister of Justice visited Mr. Vanunu in his cell, Mr. Vanunu made no complaints about the conditions of his detention.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that one person—Mordechai Vanunu—has received remarkable attention, for which I believe the noble Baroness should be thanked and congratulated? I have kept in touch with people who know Mr. Vanunu and what he has been going through. They are of the opinion that the British Government's intervention has made a tremendous difference to what he has been going through and led to a more civilised form of imprisonment. While I thank the Minister for what she has done, may I ask also that she will continue the good work so that justice will ultimately prevail?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. We shall continue to watch what is going on, but I must make your Lordships aware that we have no role in this except to ensure that human rights are observed.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, may I repeat the Question to the Minister that I asked on 20th May 1992? Have the Government yet received any representation from my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for the posthumous rehabilitation and pardon of Dr. Klaus Fuchs and Dr. Alan Nunn May?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, not to the best of my knowledge.
Baroness Blacks tone: My Lords, in answer to the Question asked of the Minister by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney on 7th February, the Minister indicated that this is a serious matter. Will she tell the House whether the discussions with the Israeli Government to which she referred have taken place since then, or is she referring to the informal discussions which took place before that Question was answered?
1512
What kind of response have the Government had from the Israeli Government in those discussions since the very long period of solitary confinement involved here raises human rights issues?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I accept that there is concern about the very long period of solitary confinement but, as 1 commented earlier, there are reasons, including Mr. Vanunu's own safety, why that has been done. We last raised the matter with the justice ministry in 1993. As I said earlier, we have no locus to intervene, but I know that a member of our embassy in Tel Aviv is in regular contact with the justice ministry, and has been since I answered the last Question to which the noble Baroness referred. We are well aware that there is good reason for Mr. Vanunu to remain in solitary confinement.

Roadworks: Motorway Coning
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in fulfilment of the Prime Minister's pledge of 22nd July 1991, as part of the Citizen's Charter, to end the coning off of miles of motorway.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State., Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the new Highways Agency has as one of its aims in the Road User's Charter to minimise roadwork construction by restricting the length of coning allowed and the minimum distance between sites. It has set itself a target to keep 93 per cent. of lane miles available on each motorway route and 95 per cent. of the total motorway network available at all times.
Lord Jay: My Lords, although there may be a target,, has the Minister noticed that if one judges by the naked eye rather than ministerial pronouncements, there seem to be just as many of those cones or bollards about as; there were when the Prime Minister made his statement? Has he also observed that, in the past month, in defiance of all the Prime Minister's best efforts, a new outbreak of those objects has occurred even on Westminster Bridge and in Parliament Square?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the ministerial eye and the statistics accord in this regard. In that regard, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has indicated, the Highways Agency is still a little short of reaching its 95 per cent. target. Indeed, as I speak, 93 per cent of the total number of kilometres or—dare I say this in case I annoy any one of your Lordships' House? —miles are available. So we are a little short of the target; but we are working towards it. One of the problems of having motorways which are used extensively and upon which people want to see improvements is that there is no way round doing work on motorways. The important point is to minimise the delays and to ensure that the coning is done sensibly.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I keep passing notices among the cones which says, "Cones Hotline" and gives a telephone number. Upon what occasion am I supposed to ring that telephone number?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I would advise the noble Lady not to telephone every time she passes a cone; her phone bill might be rather expensive. The notice is there so that if the travelling public sees things that give them cause for complaint, or want to know more about what is happening, they can telephone the cones hotline. There have been about 6,000 calls, and many of those are pursued via the Department of Transport's regional offices, then via the agent or contractor, to ensure that if there is some problem with the cones that problem can be put right to allow the traffic to flow as smoothly as possible.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has the Minister noticed the message which is written in large letters which says, 'To help motorists we have closed one lane"? I wonder whether my noble friend can stop two lanes being closed to help motorists even further. That notice is on the main route to London airport where it is essential that every conceivable part of every lane is open.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am probably more aware than many in your Lordships' House of the cones on the route to London airport. I am not sure where that helpful message appears, but it may be because one of the systems that the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency have devised to help is that instead of closing two lanes of a three-lane motorway and hard shoulder the lanes are narrowed so that the motorways can be kept as two or three-lane motorways with narrower lanes. That may be what the notice alludes to.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the message to which my noble friend drew attention to help oncoming traffic, the whole of whose half of the motorway is blocked?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it rather depends upon the circumstances. As my noble and learned friend points out, the traffic coming the other way often has to come on to one's part of the motorway so that work may be done on the opposite carriageway. I believe that the whole House will appreciate that while coning on motorways, or any other road, is annoying, especially if one is held up in the traffic, it is necessary to keep the motorways up to date and their surfaces in good order.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the lane rental programme is applied by the Department of Transport in all cases?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes, I can. The charter mentioned in the original Question and Answer sets out where we should get to by now in the lane rental programme. It suggested that we should aim at about two-thirds of road projects being by lane rental. I am happy to say that, bar a very few, almost every contract is now on a lane rental basis. That has improved
1514
the situation greatly because it means that if a contractor completes the job faster—as many now do—he receives a bonus, and if he exceeds the date specified, then he has to pay lane rental. That appears to have concentrated minds, as it was intended to do.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the cones have some advantages, particularly for some of my grandchildren? I persuade them to count the cones, and the numbers are reaching astronomical proportions at the present time. Are not the number and frequency of the cones in direct proportion to the serious state of the erosion of our motorways over the years? Is not there a strong case now for carrying out an inquiry into how those motorways were constructed in order to avoid problems arising with new construction in the future?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the cones have at least the value of helping the noble Lord's grandchildren with their arithmetic. However, one of my noble friends beside me has suggested that they will fall asleep—as is perhaps the intention—long before they reach the end of the line of cones. Approximately £650 million per year is spent on the maintenance of roads and bridges in our system. Many motorways must cope with traffic densities far in excess of those for which they were planned, which means that the original design criteria have become less than adequate. Considerable modernisation work has had to be done in certain areas not only to strengthen the beds of the motorways but to resurface them.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend encourage the powers that be at least to explain why a motorway must be coned off? It is wonderful what human nature can put up with when there is an explanation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's point. In most cases, the work that is being carried out is obvious. However, I agree that we should endeavour to erect a brief explanation of the work that is proceeding. That is especially important to motorists when passing roadworks where at the time no work appears to be taking place.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Does the Minister agree that the nature of his replies indicates that in this field, as in so many others in which the Government have powers, it is wise to be economical with the use of pledges?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, no, I do not believe that for one moment. As I explained, the pledge on lane rentals has been delivered more than abundantly because almost all programmes are carried out by the lane rental procedure. I do not believe that we have been economical with anything; we are trying to ensure that the public knows why roadworks are being carried out.

Spain: Protection of Tourists against Crime
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they were consulted by the Spanish authorities about new measures to protect foreign tourists from crime in popular resorts in Spain.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no need for consultation on routine matters of security. The Spanish authorities take these measure annually to protect tourists from crime in the popular resorts of Spain. The measures, which were introduced in 1989, involve the transfer of some 3,000 police officers from the inland area of the mainland to the main tourist areas.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Are not these measures, which were announced last year, special measures, including the use of many more police officers? Is not this good news for British holiday-makers and for the consular officers who must cope with many of the problems arising from robbed British tourists? Will the British and Spanish Governments consider in a few months time whether there have been better results this year?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is simply a continuation of the 1989 plan to protect foreign tourists. The police officers are in the Balearic Islands, the Canary Islands and on the mainland of Spain. Indeed, the exercise has been successful, as the immediate former consular officer from Malaga told me only this morning. Our embassy in Madrid and the consulates throughout Spain keep in close touch with the police and the Spanish authorities and they will continue to do so. The situation appears to be improving year by year and that must continue.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the charges are for replacing stolen passports in consulates in Spain? Do those charges cover the costs? If not, is not that a matter that should be looked into?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, without notice of the specific point, I cannot say with certainty what the charges are. However, they must cover their costs, which is a matter that we have followed up year by year. The consulates try to ensure that people take action which will prevent them having their passports stolen. It is remarkable how careless people can be: if they were more careful at the beginning they would not incur the cost of replacement.

Humber Bridge Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Drug Trafficking Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 72[Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land]:
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 58, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) and there is a site or sites available within that authority's area at which such persons may lawfully reside in their vehicle or vehicles.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 118, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120. Clause 72, as it now stands, creates a new criminal offence; that is, unauthorised camping in a vehicle on land after notice of a direction to leave. It matters not that those residing in the vehicles have nowhere to which they can lawfully go. They must move if they are not to become criminals. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that no direction may be made which does not specify a site to which those subject to the direction would be able to remove themselves and to ensure that no offence will be committed unless such a site is available.
The underlying principle that the amendments embody is not new. It has been reflected in the law for a quarter of a century. Under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, the criminal offence of unauthorised camping can be committed only in a designated area. Unauthorised camping in an area which is not designated is not a criminal offence. A designated area is one in which the Minister has decided that there are adequate camping sites for those residing in or resorting to the area. Thus the rationale is that unauthorised camping in such an area could properly be made a criminal offence because resort could be had lawfully to an available site. In areas which are not designated, unauthorised camping is not a criminal offence because, ex hypothesi, sufficient sites are not available for lawful camping. Therefore, the principle underlying that Act is that no man shall be made a criminal because he has nowhere lawfully to rest. That principle is a simple matter of common humanity and for that reason alone it should be maintained.
Two other considerations reinforce it. First, to make a man a criminal because he fails to move his family and himself when he has nowhere to which he may lawfully

1517
go will devalue the criminal law. A person in that position is more in need of assistance than prosecution. It will not enhance respect for the criminal law to treat such practical problems as the occasion of a criminal offence. Secondly, to force a man to move himself and his family when he has nowhere to which he may lawfully go will mean merely that he must camp unlawfully somewhere else. Far from the law helping to solve any problem of unauthorised camping, it will merely transfer it to another location at considerable public expense.
In Committee, the noble Earl was candid about the consequences when he was asked about what would happen to such persons in practice. All he could say was that:
"they will camp on bits of surplus highway land and other unoccupied or derelict land for short periods and then they will move on".—[Official Report, 7/6/94; col. 1122.]
In other words, the effect of having a criminal offence of unauthorised camping when a person has nowhere else to go will not help to solve any problem of unauthorised camping; it will merely transfer it elsewhere at considerable public expense and in defiance of common humanity.
I ask what are the reasons given by the Government for refusing to accept the amendments. In Committee the noble Earl said:
"We entirely agree that the lack of alternative accommodation for unauthorised campers must be a factor in an authority's decision whether or not it should evict those people. But there may be other equally important factors which it has to consider: an encampment may cause an intolerable nuisance to the landowner and the local community; it may create a public health nuisance; or it may constitute a hazard to traffic. These amendments pay no regard to those factors. I do not think it is reasonable that a local authority should be impotent to evict such encampments on the grounds that an alternative site in the locality cannot be identified".—[Official Report, 7/6/94, col.1121.]
With respect, the noble Earl's reasoning does not begin to stand up to examination. If unauthorised camping creates a nuisance or obstructs the highway, a local authority already has adequate powers to deal with those matters. In the case of highways, will the noble Earl confirm that Section 130 of the Highways Act imposes a duty on the highway authority and there is a power for every other council to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway, including any roadside waste which forms part of it? Does the noble Earl suggest that the authorities have insufficient legal means to achieve that objective? Will he confirm that such authorities may not only obtain an injunction to restrain but may also prosecute any person who obstructs the highway or causes any other danger or nuisance to users of it? Why are such powers not adequate?
In the case of other land, the noble Earl's reasoning is not even accepted, as I understand it, by the Government of which he is a member. Encampments may cause a nuisance or may damage amenity whether or not the landowner has consented to them. Will the noble Earl confirm that the Government decided that Clause 72 should not apply to encampments which have the consent of the owner of land because adequate powers exist to deal with any nuisance or harm to amenity which might arise under the Environmental
1518
Protection Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning Act of the same year, as the Government stated in their own consultation paper?
Will the Minister confirm also that the powers under those Acts are also available to a local authority whether or not the encampment is authorised by the landowner? Will he explain why he now says that the legislation which the Government promoted in 1990 to deal with nuisances and harm to amenity is defective? For example, if the campers create any nuisance on land, a local authority can serve an abatement notice, non-compliance with which can lead to a level 5 fine. Indeed, that is a fine which is more severe than that proposed under Clause 72 of the Bill. What is inadequate about that?
The Government know perfectly well that local authorities have adequate powers to deal with any nuisance or harm to amenity which an encampment may cause. Moreover, any problem will not be solved merely by requiring persons who create a nuisance to move on. That will merely move the nuisance created elsewhere.
The fact remains that the offences which Parliament is being asked to create in this Bill are not related to any nuisance or harm to amenity. The noble Earl's previous reasons for rejecting the amendments—that they may be necessary to deal with nuisance or injury to amenity —therefore do not relate to the offence which the Bill creates. The offence is of unauthorised camping and notice can be served and a criminal offence committed even if the unauthorised encampment causes no nuisance or harm to amenity.
The Government have refused to entertain amend-ments to restrict the circumstances in which the provisions can be invoked to those in which a nuisance is caused despite the fact that the Minister said in Standing Committee in another place on 10th February:
"There is no reason why local authorities should not continue to tolerate unlawful encampments that cause no harm or nuisance".
Throughout, the noble Earl has relied on the reasonableness with which local authorities may be expected to exercise the new powers which the Bill confers and he has asserted that local authorities have a proud record of tolerance towards gypsies. I would submit that that complacency not only ignores the facts; it ignores also the pernicious tendencies which this Bill will produce.
Hitherto, tolerance may have been secured to an extent by the existence of a duty to provide adequate sites and the difficulties of taking enforcement action under the planning legislation in the context of a national policy supporting gypsy site provision. But the failure of over 60 per cent. of all authorities to comply with their statutory duties after nearly a quarter of a century demonstrates a general lack of sympathy for gypsies reflected also in the fact that 90 per cent. of all applications for planning permission by gypsies have been refused even under a national policy framework hitherto sympathetic towards them.
Whatever may have been the position previously, the likelihood is that local authorities will adopt a policy of serving such notices irrespective of whether there is a lawful site to go to and irrespective of whether there is

1519
any harm sufficient to justify intervention. At the very least, once some authorities pursue an aggressive use of the new powers to drive unauthorised campers out of their areas, others will respond with a similar policy if only to protect their own areas. No authority is likely to volunteer to provide a refuge for those driven out of other areas.
Similarly, outside the metropolitan areas there will be two authorities in each district which will be given powers to serve notices—the county council and the district council. It will soon become known which authorities use their powers more readily and no doubt which will gain the popularity which such action may attract locally. In practice, intolerance will drive out tolerance. A national policy has always been necessary to ensure that all authorities provide an adequate number of sites.
The reality is that the powers will be used and not left unused, even if there is no lawful site for the person to resort to in the area and even if no harm or nuisance is being created. That must surely be what the Government intend should happen by removing the need for designation if the powers are to be invoked and by not restricting the circumstances in which notices can be served under Clause 72.
I conclude with regard to Amendments Nos. 118,119 and 120 by saying that the Bill invites Parliament to create a criminal offence of unauthorised camping in a vehicle on land after notice of a direction to leave. The offence proposed is one of unauthorised camping. As such, it is not directed at any nuisance or obstruction to the highway that such camping may cause. The central justification for the amendments is that no man should be made a criminal merely for remaining where he is when he has nowhere else in the area to which he and his family may move. If he and his family create a nuisance or other harm, a local authority has power to deal with that. But he and his family should not be made criminals for staying when they have nowhere to go.
I speak briefly to the other two amendments in the grouping —Amendments Nos. 121 and 122. When a local authority has under Clause 72 directed that persons and their vehicles should remove themselves from land, under Clause 73(1) the magistrates' court has to deal with offences arising out of non-compliance with the notice. Clause 73(1) provides that the local authority can complain to the magistrates' court which in turn may make an order requiring the removal of the offending vehicle. The order may authorise the local authority to do what is necessary to remove the vehicle.
The central vice of the Government's proposal is that they are legislating for orders to remove without having the least notion to where the vehicles are to be removed. As I pointed out in Committee, there is a gaping hole in Clause 73(1). Again, I invite the noble Earl to do what he did not do in Committee; namely, to explain why that gaping hole exists. Under the Bill there is no power for the local authority to detain or store what is the property of another pending its relocation. If there is nowhere in the locality to which the vehicle can be moved, what is to be done with it?
In Committee, I sought to ask whether there was any reason why, under such an order, a local authority may
1520
not simply dump the vehicle in a lay-by in an adjoining district, thus moving the problem on to its neighbour. I have to observe that there came no answer to those questions from the noble Earl. However, I trust that we shall receive a response today. We propose that a vehicle should only be removed to another site in which those who reside in it may stay. I ask: where else is it sensible to put it? I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, in his conclusion. It is one of the most important factors that we have to consider this afternoon and one with which we failed to deal on the last occasion. We do not want to return to the situation that existed prior to 1986 which many noble Lords will remember. At that time, local authorities moved caravans from one neighbourhood to another, leaving the citizens of the neighbouring authority to pick up the pieces. We saw much of that in my former constituency of Orpington which is on the outer edges of Greater London. It was sometimes the custom to take caravans and dump them in the county of Kent. Everyone knows that that went on around the perimeter of Greater London. Local authorities had to cope with an increasing number of gypsies camping on unauthorised land in the very built-up districts of outer London. They would put the gypsies into the neighbouring county as the simplest way of getting rid of the problem. But, of course, it did not do so; it simply created additional difficulties for the authorities in the counties which had to cope with such people.
I must insist that the Minister replies to that last question. In my view, it is the key to the whole problem. If we allow gypsies to be moved from unauthorised sites and, in addition, state that magistrates may put them somewhere else, then it is our duty as one of the Houses of Parliament to say where the courts are expected to put them. If there is nowhere else within the area covered by the authority concerned, then there is no option but for that authority to take the caravans over the boundary and dump them on someone else's land. Is that really what we want? If the Minister does not have a reply, are we not entitled to put right what seems to me to be a very serious omission before the Bill leaves this place and returns to another place?
I should like to refer to a letter that the Minister kindly sent me after the previous occasion when we debated the matter. I put certain questions to him about the duties of local authorities under the legislation regarding the homeless. I asked what was to happen to people who were living on an unauthorised site who Wére removed by the police and then placed somewhere else. I asked if they then became homeless, and, if so, was the local authority then obliged to rehouse them. I referred to the consultation paper Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies.
The Minister reminded me—although I believe I referred to the matter in Committee—that the consultation paper stated that a person should not be treated as homeless if there is suitable accommodation of any sort available for him to occupy. I asked the Minister the following question. If such a person was still inside the caravan, even though it was occupying

1521
part of an unauthorised site, would he be treated as having suitable accommodation? In his reply, the Minister said that it seemed unlikely that a gypsy family who were evicted from an unauthorised site and who had nowhere lawful to place their caravan would be regarded as having suitable accommodation available. In other words, the act of removing the gypsy family from an unauthorised site is to make them homeless within the meaning of that term according to the consultation paper to which I referred. Assuming that the family had children, the local authority would then be responsible for making alternative accommodation available to them.
Is there really much point in that? The local authority causes the gypsies to be removed from an unauthorised site, knowing that there are children in the family and knowing that they will then become responsible for offering alternative accommodation to the family. That does not seem to make much sense to me. However, before we leave the matter, it is important for us to get on record from the Minister in the course of the debate that the meaning as set out in the consultation paper is the one to be applied to gypsies who have been removed from unauthorised camps. I hope that the Minister will confirm in his response that the local authority will be obliged to rehouse such a family and offer them accommodation under the terms set out in the consultation paper.
Secondly, has any attempt been made to ascertain the view of the police on the matter? For example, do they want the duty? Are they happy about having such a duty placed upon them to remove caravans from unauth-orised sites when there is nowhere else for such people to go? What consultation has the Minister undertaken with the Association of Chief Police Officers, with the Police Federation and others who will have to carry out the Government's dirty work? Do they know their duties regarding the alternative places to which such caravans are to be towed? Has any guidance been issued to the police about where those caravans are supposed to go? Are they to be put on a roadside, are they to be taken into the area of a neighbouring authority just over the boundary, or are they to put on yet another unauthorised site and thereby incur even bigger fines which obviously the gypsy family would be unable to pay? I should like to know what the police think about that aspect of the matter.
The pernicious tendencies to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred are already beginning to manifest themselves. Moreover, with the shadow of the Bill looming over the countryside, there is much evidence to show not only that evictions are already taking place under existing law but that vigilantes are also taking the law into their own hands and exercising violence against gypsies to force them to leave unauthorised camps.
I have with me a letter from Jenny Smith who is the chair of the Labour Campaign for Travellers Rights drawing my attention to a number of recent incidents. The first took place on 16th November 1993 near the Cirencester area. Travellers were attacked with CS gas and baseball bats. One man was very badly beaten around the head and was in a very dazed condition when
1522
Jenny Smith saw him that night. There were five children on that site at the time. At the beginning of April, again near Cirencester, a woman had the spokes of the wheels of her horse-drawn vehicle broken with a sledge-hammer by local people.
A further incident, also in Cirencester, involved people in balaclavas attacking a site. One woman was hospitalised after being hit around the head with an iron bar. On 30th May 1994 at Watlington near Oxford, a grandmother, a pregnant woman with a two year-old baby, three teenagers and two adult men were attacked by local vigilantes. A bus was completely destroyed by fire, all the windows of the vehicles on the site were smashed, caravan homes were extensively damaged and most of the occupants' personal possessions were ruined and destroyed. The Government have created that kind of environment by pressing forward with the Bill. It is the kind of attitude that I believe we shall see increasingly in the coming months if the legislation is enacted.
The policy that is being replaced is one of give and take where local authorities were obliged to provide accommodation for gypsies residing in their areas. In return, the gypsies accepted back in 1968 the fact that local authorities should have additional powers to move gypsies from unauthorised encampments where adequate accommodation had been provided. They did not like it, but they accepted it as part of a reasonable bargain which would give them the long-term hope that, ultimately, adequate accommodation would be provided on a network of sites throughout the country. In such circumstances, of course, it would not matter to them if these powers had been implemented.
I wish that even at this late stage I could persuade the Minister, who is a humane man, to think carefully about what the Government are doing. Do they wish to create disorder and disruption in the lives of gypsy families when we are so near to providing a complete solution that would eliminate the problem of unauthorised campers forever? I know that it is probably futile to appeal to him in this way, but I do so nevertheless in the hope that perhaps your Lordships may think that this provision should be struck out of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, even if this group of amendments were right in principle, which I doubt and to which I shall say a word in a moment, it seems to me that they would be unworkable in practice and would indeed cause disappointment to the people who would be trying to rely upon them. Let us take this question of the local authority being required to refer the people to an unoccupied site, under the control, presumably, of the local authority. If we take a large county, like Hampshire, Norfolk, Lincolnshire or Kent, the nearest available site, on the county basis, may be many miles away and may already be full up if the people arrived there—so another site would have to be recommended.
But let us take the smaller unit—the district council, because in subsection (6) of this clause "local authority" includes a district council. Some district councils are very big. I happen to live in a very big one which stretches about 28 miles by 22 miles. I do not think there

1523
would be more than two sites available in that area. They might both be full. But there is a further factor. The clause, even as it stands, will create an extra administrative task for the local authority concerned. It will be a task which needs to be dealt with at the weekends.
If we add the ideas contained in these amendments to the opportunities under the clause then, of course, there would be very much more work to be done. Local authorities would undoubtedly have to keep some staff in offices, perhaps in different parts of the local authority. Indeed, they might have to have the assistance of the police in patrolling places where these incidents take place, or are reported by telephone to have taken place. Therefore, the proposal, however well inten-tioned, would be unworkable and could cause disappointments.
I do not think, with respect to the noble Lord who has moved the amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who has supported it, that the amendment is right in principle. It is especially not right in principle in relation to paragraph (c) of subsection (1). That paragraph refers to the occupation of any land without the consent of the owner. That means that if people intend to camp with their vehicles on private property and are determined to get somewhere to go, all that they need to do is to go onto any private property and when the owner protests say to the owner, "All you have to do is to telephone the local authority and they will find another site for us", but the local authority may simply be unable to do so. One could elaborate the practical problems, and indeed the points of principle that arise, but I really would not expect my noble friend Lord Ferrers to accept these amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government have made it clear during the passage of this Bill, both in this House and in another place, that they accept that the problem of unauthorised camping by gypsies arises mainly because of the shortage of authorised sites. We accept also that it is desirable that gypsies should have lawful accommodation, although we differ from the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on the question as to how and by whom that accommodation should principally be provided in the future.
What we do not accept is that local authorities should be the bodies in question, or that they should not have adequate powers to remove unauthorised encampments of gypsies, or any other unauthorised campers for that matter, unless and until such authorised accommodation is available. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said again today, as he did in Committee, that the underlying philosophy of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 was that no man should be made a criminal because he had nowhere to rest lawfully. The noble Lord made a point of saying that. He mentioned it twice today. He even said that people should stay if they are doing no harm and are not causing a nuisance. I am bound to say that I thought that was the most astonishing remark to come from a lawyer. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is saying, in other words, that a person who sits on someone else's land or, if one extrapolated that, sits in someone else's house, may be
1524
permitted to stay there provided he is doing no harm and is not causing a nuisance. I should have thought that is one of the fundamental problems of the law of property. There is a misconception here. It has never been the case that a gypsy could regard himself as immune from prosecution for illegal camping simply because there was no alternative site for him to go to in the immediate vicinity. Under the 1968 Act, a gypsy commits an offence as soon as he camps anywhere in a designated area which is not an authorised site. It is of no significance whatsoever if all the sites are full. Under the 1968 Act that does not permit the gypsy to camp in the area on an unauthorised site. It is no argument to say, "The sites are full, I have nowhere else to go". The fact is that the law says that it is at present an offence to camp on an unauthorised site in a designated area.
The 1968 Act imposes no constraint whatever on a designated authority to use its powers of eviction. The fact is that there are many gypsies who refuse to occupy sites which are provided by local authorities. The 1968 Act recognises that, and always has done—a point which appears to have escaped the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, today. Under the 1968 Act it is an offence for a gypsy to camp unlawfully in a designated area. Under the Government's proposals, that would no longer be the case. It would no longer be an offence to camp unlawfully in a designated area. It would not be an offence to camp—which it is now. The gypsy will only have committed an offence when he fails to move on when he is directed to do so by the local authority. The gypsy who is given no such direction would commit no offence. That is a distinct difference from the position at present.
The Government are therefore introducing no new philosophy of criminality in this area. What we are doing in these provisions is to try to find some sensible and practical ways of enabling local authorities to control unauthorised camping and to limit the nuisance and despoliation of the countryside which at present can occur and which the system of designation has failed to address.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that we were near to eliminating unauthorised camping forever. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that that is so. The reason the Government's provisions are necessary is that noble Lords will find, if they look at the figures, that there have been considerable changes. In 1981 there were 3,800 gypsy caravans on council sites. The number had increased by 1994 to 6,370. That is a 67 per cent. increase. There has been a 135 per cent. increase in the number of caravans on private sites. However, the number of gypsy caravans increased between 1981 and 1994 from 9,805 to 13,794, a 40 per cent. increase. Therefore, despite the fact that more sites have been made available the number of caravans has increased.
In 1978, when the provisions were introduced, fewer than 10 per cent. of gypsies were in lawful accommodation. Now, 70 per cent. of gypsies are in lawful accommodation and 10 per cent. are on tolerated sites. The fact is that the number of unauthorised campers has increased. I find it astonishing that it should

1525
be said that because the numbers have increased local authorities should have to provide the extra places and taxpayers should have to pay for them.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were concerned about the powers to remove people. The Clause 73 power is to remove people from the land. However, in practice, vehicles are taken to redundant highway land or to council land and gypsies are invited to move them. In practice the authorities have had few problems in using the existing powers to remove vehicles, which are similar to those in Section 11 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Forced evictions are rare.
The noble Lord was concerned about statutory nuisance powers. The nuisance powers available to local authorities are not adequate to deal with unauthorised camping. First, the environmental health officer has to serve an abatement notice. That can be served on the unauthorised campers. But where there is any difficulty in identifying the person responsible for the nuisance it is more likely to be served on the owner or occupier, who would not have given his permission to the unauthorised campers to be on his land in the first place. If the abatement notice was served on the unauthorised campers there might be a delay of at least 21 days to allow them to submit an appeal against the notice. If the notice was ignored by the unauthorised campers they would have to be prosecuted in the magistrates' courts, entailing yet further delay. The Government's proposal would give local authorities the power to evict unauthorised campers. That is the only effective solution to unauthorised encampment which is causing an intolerable nuisance.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is right to say that the highway authority has powers to take action in the court against obstruction of the highway. Clause 72 gives a power to direct travellers to move without first going to the court.
I turn to the question of homelessness, about which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was concerned. Gypsies in caravans with no legal place to camp are already homeless under Part in of the Housing Act 1985. The new proposals do not change that. But gypsies have not applied to local authorities for housing, mostly because they do not want to move into housing. We expect gypsies to continue to live as nomads and to find their own sites. In the meantime local authorities will act tolerantly.
The homelessness legislation, whether in its present form or as it may be under the Government's proposed reforms, provides a safety net for homeless households. Whether a particular household is homeless depends upon the assessment by a local housing authority under the statutory criteria. My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction hopes to announce before the parliamentary Recess the Government's conclusions following the consultation to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred.
The noble Lord asked me what the police think about this question. Clause 72 is a matter not for the police but for local authorities. We are not placing a duty on local authorities to evict travellers. There is no duty on them
1526
to evict travellers. That would be a matter for the discretion of the local authority and the decision will be based on the circumstances of the individual case. We expect them, and will advise them, to continue their current policy of toleration.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question. Does he mean that in those circumstances local authorities will have to bring in the police to assist them in the exercise of their duties?
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it will be for the local authority to tell the people to move on. If they do not move on that will be an offence and they will be taken to court as a result of that offence.
Under our proposals in the Bill, which have worried the noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Avebury, so much—and unreasonably so—all principal local authorities in England and Wales will have powers to tackle unauthorised camping by anyone in their areas. We think that it is right that it should be for the local authorities to judge when it is appropriate to use the powers. I recall with a certain amount of relief, and surprise considering his speech today, that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, seemed content finally to accept that point when we last debated these matters on 7th June. I remind him of what he said then, when speaking to an amendment which had been tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. He said that,
"a local authority, with all its knowledge of its own area and its relationships with neighbouring areas, will be in a much better position than a magistrates' court to decide whether these new powers should be invoked".—[Official Report, 7/6/94; col. 1167.]
That is also the Government's view. The Department of the Environment intends to issue advice to local authorities repeating the existing advice that they should use the new powers to evict gypsies with great care, particularly where they are encamped unobtrusively on council land, and that they should continue to look for ways to minimise nuisance, by providing, for instance, temporary emergency stopping places where gypsies can stay for short periods.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, have three serious disadvantages. First, they would place the whole onus on the local authority. It does not matter how much mess is being made or how much nuisance is being caused to people in the locality; under the noble Lord's amendment the local authority would be powerless to do anything without first providing a site. That is unreasonable. The unauthorised camper would be allowed to continue camping unlawfully with impunity and with no regard for the rights of others in the area.
Secondly, there would be a requirement for the local authority to provide more pitches than there are gypsies normally residing in or resorting to its area in order to meet the needs of every conceivable casual visitor to its area. That would impose an even more onerous burden on local authorities than did the 1968 Act. It would not be a sensible use of public funds.
Thirdly, the local authority would be required to direct to a particular site or sites all unauthorised

1527
campers, whether gypsies, New Age travellers, recreational caravanners or itinerant workers. I do not believe that any local authority could be expected to manage sites effectively on that basis.
The Government believe that the powers in Clauses 72 and 73 are necessary to enable local authorities to control unauthorised camping in their areas. We remain of the view that it must be left to local authorities to decide when to invoke the powers, and to the gypsies as to whether they wish to live on a site which is chosen by the local authority. For those reasons I hope that your Lordships will not agree to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, recognised that there may be nowhere for the gypsies to go if subject to a direction as if that were a conclusive argument against the amendments. It appears to me to be the justification for them. I am unable to see how the amendments would cause disappointment to their intended beneficiaries, because if an alternative site is not available they would have the advantage of remaining where they are. The noble Earl said that he found it surprising that a lawyer could arrive at that conclusion; namely, an entitlement in those circumstances to remain parked where they are on land which, by definition, is not their own. That portrays on the part of the noble Earl a failure to appreciate a fundamental objection of principle to the Government's proposal, namely, that it constitutes unjustifiable discrimination against those residing in vehicles.
There is no criminal offence of intentional trespass as such. The offences which the Government propose discriminate against those who trespass with a vehicle in which they reside. There is no rational ground for such discrimination. Is it, for example, to be suggested that the public interest will be better served if the same individuals were to camp unlawfully in a tent or to sleep rough? Why should individuals be subject to the criminal law for having their own mobile roof rather than trespassing under someone else's? I doubt that there is any rational basis for such discrimination.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, although I do not like to do so. If I were to plonk my caravan in the noble Lord's garden and proceed to sit there and do no nuisance and cause no harm, does the noble Lord really say that I have a right to stay there?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, plainly there would be no civil right. But we are addressing whether or not persons who trespass with vehicles should be singled out and discriminated against, as I submit, by the criminal law when the tramp who sleeps rough or camps unlawfully in a tent would not.
My overall view is that the provisions are offensive to the traditional respect and protection that our country affords to minorities. In those circumstances, I desire to test the opinion of the House.
3.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 118) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 151.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lawrence, L.

Avebury, L.[Teller.]

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Barnett, L.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L,

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

[Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grey, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cadman, L.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Carnock, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Annaly, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Annan, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Arran, E.

Congleton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Courtown, E.

Astor, V.

Cox, B.

Balfour, E.

Craigavon, V.

Barber, L.

Cranborne, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Beloff, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V.

Blyth, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Boardman, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Borthwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brentford, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Elton, L.

Burnham, L.

Erne, E.

Burton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Butterworth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

1529

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gainford, L.

Nelson, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Northesk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orkney, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gridley, L.

Peel, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Pender, L.

Halsbury, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hanworth, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton, L.

Hayter, L.

Renwick, L.

Henley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Holderness, L.

Roskill, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selborne, E.

Ironside, L.

Shannon, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Simon, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kimball, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stedman, B.

Long, V.

Stockton, E.

Lucas, L.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lytton, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

[Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Sudeley, L.

Chancellor.]

Tenby, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Terrington, L.

Manton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mar, C.

Thurlow, L.

Marshall of Goring, L.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Mersey, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mountevans, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wise, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wynford, L.

Moyne, L.

Young, B.

Munster, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 119 to 122 not moved. ]
Clause 75[Repeal of certain provisions relating to gipsy sites]:
[Amendment No. 122A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No, 123:
Page 60, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("( ) Sections 10 to 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (Control of unauthorised encampments) are hereby repealed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clauses 72 to 74 of the Bill can perfectly well co-exist with a continuing duty on local authorities to provide sites and the Secretary of State's power to direct them to do so. This amendment therefore is designed to ensure that the duty to provide sites continues. There are three main reasons. First, in the absence of such a duty there will be no further significant public provision of sites and the likelihood is that some existing public sites will close. Secondly, there is no realistic prospect of gypsies themselves providing sufficient sites, as the
1530
Government suggest. Thirdly, without such a duty there is no real prospect of any solution to the practical problems of site provision and unauthorised camping.
It is true to say that if the duty is repealed, local authorities will retain a power to provide sites. The noble Earl said in Committee that it would be entirely a matter for local authorities to decide whether and where to provide sites. He said that the Government did not want to see the end of provision from public funds. This is an approach which does not fit with what the Government propose or with what other Ministers say. In another place, the Minister, Mr. Maclean, said:
"we believe the time has come to call a halt to caravan site provision at public expense and, instead, to encourage gypsies to establish their own sites through the normal planning system". —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 10/2/94; col. 709.]
That is Mr. Maclean's position. Is it the noble Earl's position? In replying to the debate on Second Reading of the Bill in your Lordships' House, the Minister of State, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said that there was now,
"a reasonable level of public provision. The steps we have taken to encourage more gypsies to establish their own sites will, we trust, make up for the shortfall".—[Official Report, 25/4/94; col. 509.]
I submit that whatever the noble Earl may believe, the Government, in truth, want public authorities to have no further role in the provision of sites. Whatever members of the Government may now say, that will be the inevitable practical consequence of their own proposals. There will be no statutory duty to make adequate provision; there will be no central grants for the capital expenditure involved; there will be no national pressure from the Government for authorities to provide an adequate number of sites, whether by means of directions or otherwise, and the incentive to provide sites in order to obtain the powers available on designation will be removed.
There are normally no votes or popularity to be had locally in providing sites. Frankly, it is often an unpopular task. There are many other pressures on the budgets of local authorities which have greater appeal. At best, any new public provision will be on a small scale compared with what has hitherto been achieved.
Any new public provision, therefore, will be wholly inadequate to meet the needs which now exist. At best, if the Bill passes in its present form, any new public provision will be on a tiny scale compared with that which has hitherto been achieved. That has been proved by experience. It was recognised by all parties in Parliament in 1968 that the existence of that power to provide sites had proved insufficient of itself. It was for that reason that a duty to exercise the powers local authorities already had was sensibly imposed by the 1968 Act.
Moreover, the noble Earl can give no convincing assurance that, in the absence of a duty on public authorities, existing public provision will not be lost, aggravating the shortfall in sites. There will be no requirement for authorities to keep existing sites open. There will be no duty to do so. If they run at a loss—as well they may—or if they are unpopular locally, as undoubtedly many are, there will be every incentive to close them. The reality will be that, in the absence of a

1531
duty on local authorities to provide sites, there will be no additional public provision of any significance and the likelihood is that some existing public sites will close.
What hope is there, then, of those in need of sites providing an adequate number of them? They have certainly not done so, notwithstanding the Government's encouragement and the failure of over 60 per cent. of local authorities to fulfil their duties hitherto. The Government's only attempt to support the suggestion that they may solve the problem has been to make the point that private site provision has increased at twice the rate of council site provision since 1981 —a statistic which the noble Earl mentioned in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and of which he was good enough to send me a copy. It is a statistic which he described as telling.
That statistic must be related to the low base rate from which it is taken. Such a statistic says absolutely nothing about the actual numbers involved. When the noble Earl comes to reply, will he confirm that, notwithstanding the failure of over 60 per cent. of all local authorities to perform their statutory duties in the period between 1981 and 1992—the period referred to in the Government's consultation paper—over 37 per cent. more sites in absolute numbers were provided by local authorities than by others. Will the Minister confirm that that figure would have been that much greater if public authorities had performed their duties as they ought? Notwithstanding the deplorable failure of public authorities to comply with the law, is it not true that public site provision has always been the main source of supply?
There can be no doubt that for many years there has been considerable encouragement for private site provision, as the noble Earl accepted in Committee. But between 1981 and 1992 the number of caravans on private sites increased by only 1,600. There is every reason to continue to encourage such provision. But many gypsies cannot afford to provide their own sites and there is little which others do to cater for them except local authorities under a duty to act.
So let us look not at the misleading statistics about the rates of increase but at what matters: namely, numbers. The simple fact remains that private site provision has only produced sites for about 150 caravans a year. In 1992, however, there were 4,500 caravans on unauthorised sites. Therefore, at the rate of private provision that has been achieved, in practice it would take about 30 years to provide enough sites merely to meet the requirement which already existed in 1992. But in fact it is likely to take far longer for such private provision to meet the need for lawful sites, if it is ever achieved, for three main reasons.
What I desire to emphasise first is how the Government's planning policies have changed, and changed adversely, to the interests of the gypsies, despite what was said by the noble Earl in Committee. I desire to take the opportunity to spell this out. Planning policies have become less accommodating so that even if a gypsy has the resources to provide a site for his
1532
family, or others, he will find it more difficult than it has been to do so lawfully. The rate of provision is therefore likely to reduce in any event.
The second point is that the number of separate gypsy households requiring sites is likely to increase as existing families grow up. The third point is that even this calculation assumes that there will be no loss of public provision, which is likely as the Government's proposals become law.
There is no realistic prospect that gypsies will be able to provide the necessary number of lawful sites themselves. The Government may trust to private provision to make up the present shortfall, but there is no realism about that. There is no rational basis for their trust whatsoever. If the Government take issue with that conclusion, the noble Earl should tell the House, when, if the Bill becomes law, he has been advised that an adequate number of sites for those residing in or resorting to all areas will be provided. I am bound to ask: if the Minister has had no advice, why not? If he has had advice, what has it been?
There is humbug at the heart of the Government's policy. This humbug is not simply that they must know that what they are suggesting is unrealistic: as a solution to the problem of unauthorised sites; it is also that at the same time as they suggest that private site provision is the solution on which we should rely they are making such provisions more difficult by altering national planning policies.
In Committee the noble Earl stated of private site provision:
"we want to encourage that trend The circular, Gypsy Sites and Planning … was produced".—[Official Report, 7/6/94; col. 1187.]
Noble Lords might have been forgiven for thinking that the noble Earl was suggesting that in that circular the Government had eased the difficulties of obtaining planning permission for gypsy sites. The truth is the opposite. Before the circular, as the Government's consultation paper put it,
"gypsies enjoy[ed] a privileged position in the planning system".
The avowed purpose of the circular was to remove that.
I ask the noble Earl to confirm these facts. Previously, was it not recognised that it was necessary to accept such sites, even in areas of open land where there are land use policies severely restrictive to development such as green belts and areas of outstanding natural beauty? The new circular specific-ally withdrew that advice.
Is it not the policy that as a rule it will not be appropriate to make provision for gypsy sites in such areas? That is what the circular says. Given that that is the case, I should be grateful to the noble Earl if he could explain how he came to write in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to which I have referred in the context of gypsy sites that,
"the circular does not change the Government's existing policy on development in the Green Belt"?
It plainly does.
Moreover, had not the Secretary of State also declared in that recent circular that,
"whilst gypsy sites might be acceptable in some rural locations, the granting of permission must be consistent with agricultural, archaeological, countryside, environmental and Green Belt policies".
Is not the likelihood of many new sites being consistent with all such development plan policies remote—particularly if businesses are to be run from the site on which their caravans are stationed as many gypsies prefer? Moreover, have the Government not now explicitly abandoned earlier advice that,
"the special need to accommodate gypsies—and the consequen-ces of not accommodating them—should be taken into account as a material consideration in reaching planning decisions"?
So is it not apparent that the Secretaries of State will no longer recognise these factors as significant in favour of the grant of permission, notwithstanding any conflict with planning policy?
Against that background, which is now patently more hostile to applications for planning permission for gypsy sites, I should be obliged if the noble Earl could explain in terms the quite extraordinary statement that he made in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which he allowed me the advantage of reading, that,
"we expect the Circular to encourage more private applications and thus to increase the number of permissions which are granted".
How can it possibly be the case that a less favourable national planning policy than that under which 90 per cent. of all gypsy site applications were refused will result in more planning permissions being granted?
No doubt the noble Earl may say that the Department of the Environment will look at plans to see whether regard has been had to the needs of gypsies in formulating planning policies. But is he suggesting that that department has hitherto not done so? In the absence of any duty to provide sites which stimulated allocations and plans, what assurance can be given that any greater weight will be given to gypsy needs than hitherto?
If the Secretary of State were seriously concerned to secure that gypsy needs were met in planning allocations, he would publish targets for site provision as part of his strategic planning guidance in just the same way as he publishes targets for dwelling provision for the settled community. He of course has no intention of doing any such thing. It must be obvious that plan making will not provide more sites when the Secretary of State's planning policy is more hostile; when he has withdrawn the privileged position that such sites enjoyed in the planning system—a provision which he expressly described in the consultation paper; and when the duty to provide sites is repealed. The only charitable explanation for these extraordinary suggestions and the statements emanating from the noble Earl on planning policy is that the Home Office has not read or has not understood what the Department of the Environment has published.
There is no public support for the abolition of the duty on local authorities. Faced with no such support the noble Earl said in Committee that the Government decided to proceed with their main proposals because they are committed to reducing unauthorised camping. But the fact is that without such a duty there is no real prospect of any solution to the practical problems of site provision and unauthorised camping. In the absence of such a duty there will be no further significant public provision of sites; the major source of new sites will dry up; and the likelihood is that some existing public sites
1534
will close. There is also no realistic prospect of gypsies themselves providing sufficient sites as the Government suggest.
The substance is that the suggestion of private site provision is a smokescreen. Had the Government wanted to encourage such provision, they would have made planning policies more accommodating to such proposals, not more hostile. In truth, what the Government rely on to deal with a social problem is the unique imposition in the area of trespass of criminal sanctions. The real effect of the legislation, which they dare not openly avow, is to make those who have no lawful place to reside in their vehicles disappear through the imposition of criminal sanctions.
The wider use of criminal sanctions for unauthorised camping makes it all the more necessary that the duty to provide sites remains and is not repealed, so that families are less likely to be made criminals because they have nowhere lawfully to live.
I now turn to Amendment No. 124. The purpose of this amendment is for the Government to retain their existing statutory powers to make grants. That power has been a key element of the public policy that has been followed over the past 15 years. It was adopted following a recommendation by Sir John Cripps in his report on gypsy accommodation.
The noble Earl said in Committee:
"The grant has been available now for over 15 years and what was intended as an incentive has turned into a dependency".—[OfficialReport, 7/6/94; col. 1188.]
The situation has never been one of avoidable addiction. It is simply one of the need for such grants. Not only are gypsy sites an unpopular competitor for capital expenditure, but their provision is likely to be unremunerative without that. As the noble Earl confirmed in Committee, it has been found to be the case that the costs of site provision have not been financed from rents and rates. Without a duty to provide sites and without financial assistance with the capital expenditure involved, the policy to provide an adequate number of sites would not have progressed to the extent that it has. Understandably, the Government took the view that the rate of grant for capital expenditure should be 100 per cent.
The grants represented a recognition of the national interest in ensuring that gypsies should be satisfactorily accommodated. In a circular that is still in force, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales stated that,
"it is in the national interest that gypsies should be satisfactorily accommodated: the total amount of the grant is therefore being found from central government voted expenditure and not piecemeal from housing investment programme allocations to individual authorities".
With respect, I think the noble Earl misunderstood in Committee my questions on this matter, so I will repeat them. Will he be good enough to reveal to the House, when the Government consider that it ceased to be in the national interest that gypsies should be satisfactorily accommodated so that one of the main reasons for making grants has disappeared? On the other hand, if the Government consider that it is still in the national

1535
interest that gypsies should be satisfactorily accom-modated, the noble Earl will no doubt tell the House why the Government are proposing to abolish the powers that they have to promote the national interest.
Having listened carefully to the noble Earl in Committee, I am not clear whether the Government's objection to the present power to make grants is that it is exercised and therefore costs money, or that it is not exercised enough and therefore has not cost more. Despite his statement that authorities had become dependent upon such grants, the noble Earl also thought it right to explain to the Committee that as,
"local authorities have not taken up the 100 per cent. grant which was available for these people … over the past 15 or 20 years, there is no point in continuing that provision".—[Official Report, 7/6/94; col. 1128.]
If the problem is that not enough authorities have taken advantage of the grants available, the reason and the solution are obvious. The reason is that over 60 per cent. of authorities have failed to comply with their statutory duty to provide adequate sites and accordingly have not made application for grants to assist them to do what they should have done. The solution, as was said in Committee, is for the Secretary of State to direct them to perform their duties.
The Government have complained of the cost of these grants; namely, £56 million between July 1978 and August 1992—£4 million or £5 million a year. Complaints about expenditure on that scale in respect of an important social problem are quite unconvincing. A sum of £4 million or £5 million or so a year pales into insignificance when placed against the support that the national taxpayer provides each year for social housing for the settled population of the country. Should the noble Earl refer to the cost of the grants, I would invite him to inform us of the cost to the national taxpayer of support for all forms of social housing for the settled community. For example, did not local housing authorities alone receive over £4 billion—not £4 million —in subsidy from 1991 to 1992? What proportion does the amount of grants paid on gypsy site provision bear to the total amount of support provided by the national taxpayer for all forms of social housing?
I suggest that to complain of the amount spent— though it lives unconvincingly with the proposition that the local authorities are not taking up the grant, which is some £4 million to £5 million a year—is to lose any reasonable sense of proportion. Moreover, the Government's policy is likely to lead overall to more public expenditure: in moving gypsies from place to place; on those in prison for failing to pay fines; and in having to deal with the unfortunate consequences for the children and families that the new approach will undoubtedly cause.
Under the present arrangements the Government have a discretion on how much grant, if any, to pay. If the existing amount is unjustifiable, why is it not reduced in the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion? How can the amount that the Government have decided to spend as a matter of discretion justify repealing and wholly removing the power that they have been exercising? Do the Government not trust themselves to act sensibly?
The Government propose to repeal the power to make any grant at all. The result will be that any capital expenditure on sites by local authorities will now have to compete with other demands on their limited capital resources. It is a competition that the sites will no doubt lose in the absence of any duty to provide sites and the general unpopularity of such expenditure. Unlike other forms of social housing, there will be no power for an exchequer contribution to public provision.
I suggest to the House that the proposed repeal is the clearest possible indication that the Gavernment no longer consider that there is a national interest in the provision of adequate accommodation for gypsies. Taken with the proposed repeal of the duty to provide sites and the hardening of planning policy, it is the clearest possible indication that there is no political will to achieve any realistic solution to the practical problem of site provision.
This is a mean spirited repeal. It is a statement of the Government's determination to rid themselves of any practical responsibility for the solution of a social problem and to treat that problem as a problem only of public order. It is lamentable that the Government consider that the proper agents for the solution of social problems are ultimately the police and not the public authorities. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, there is an alternative explanation for the Government's conduct. It is not that they believe that gypsies should be left to sink or swim or that they are not interested in whether or not adequate accommodation is provided throughout the country for caravans to be stationed lawfully. The. Government know what problems occur and what troubles arise with the settled population wherever there are unauthorised sites. They get masses of letters from MPs whose constituents are annoyed by the nuisance, dirt and other unsavoury aspects of unauthorised sites in their immediate neighbourhood.
Obviously, the Government believe that all gypsy families should ultimately be accommodated on authorised sites. But because of their ideology, they believe that the remainder of the task should be accomplished entirely by private enterprise and not by the local authorities. They cannot understand that if the efforts of both private enterprise and local authorities are harnessed together, completion of that task will be reached at an earlier date than otherwise would have been the case.
The Minister said that it was increasingly difficult for local authorities to find sites where they can build the larger encampments which have been common in the past. That difficulty can easily be solved. They can merely provide a smaller number of caravans on each unit, just as the gypsies themselves do. The figures for the past few years show that while local authorities have been responsible for the bulk of the provision in the whole of the period leading up to 1994, in the past few years private enterprise has made a significant contribution. Everybody should welcome the fact that it has been able to do so.

1537
I should like to ask a very simple question. If, contrary to the supposition of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, the Minister believes that the sooner all gypsies are on authorised sites, the sooner the nuisance caused by unauthorised encampments will be eliminated for ever, then why not harness the efforts of both public and private authorities? It is clear that if that is done the task will be completed sooner instead of depending entirely upon the efforts of one sector or another.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, gave me some figures on 27th June, from which it appears that the local authorities are capable of a considerable additional effort over and above what they have done in the past. The number of applications for stage 1 approval— approval in principle for gypsy site grants—received between 27th January and 4th March (a period of just over one month) was for 541 pitches whereas in the previous 18 months the applications for stage 1 approval totalled only 1,402. Those figures illustrate that the imposition of a deadline suddenly galvanised the local authorities into putting in quite a few stage 1 applications for approval in principle. From 4th March until 23rd June the local authorities continued to submit applications to proceed to stage 2 and tender for seven sites totalling 130 pitches. That is at a much higher rate than local authorities have provided in the previous four years. So they have not come to the end of their tether. They have not exhausted their ingenuity in finding suitable sites for gypsy encampments and they should be allowed to continue with that task in parallel with the private sector, so that both can make their contribution to the completion of the task.
I did a little arithmetic, making assumptions on what could happen if both sectors were to continue providing sites at the same rate as in the past. I made the further assumption also that the Government are correct in thinking that because of the changes in the structure plans arising from Circular 194, the private sector would start to make an increased contribution from 1996 onwards. I do not necessarily believe that because, when I look at what has happened to applications from gypsies for permission in recent months, particularly since the circular was issued in January 1994, I see no signs of the Government's optimism being realised.
When one looks at the bad authorities, one sees an interesting fact. The local authorities that failed to honour their obligations under the 1968 Act are the ones that are most reluctant to give permission for gypsies to develop their own sites. For example, in the region of Avon, Wiltshire provided 158 pitches, Somerset 126, Gloucestershire 102; and since its formation in 1974 Avon had provided only 16 pitches up until 1993. Some local experts believe that that is only because the Government issued the authority with a direction under Section 9 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
When one looks at the planning applications submitted by gypsies in relation to land in Avon, we see universal refusal. Therefore, where the local authority declines to provide sites for gypsies, they also do not allow the gypsies to develop sites for themselves. We find large areas of the country—no-go areas for gypsies —where, first, local authorities did not honour their
1538
obligations under the 1968 Act which are now being repealed; and, secondly, planning permission will not be granted as a result of Circular 194.
The Government may be able to help a little on this matter —they have some control over the process—if they want to uphold appeals by gypsies against the refusal to grant permission by local authorities. I was interested in another part of the Minister's letter to me, which has already been the subject of several quotations. The Minister said that 283 out of the 1,250 caravans owned by gypsies on land without planning permission were on what he called "tolerated" sites where the local planning authority is not proposing to take enforcement action to stop the gypsies using the sites for residential purposes. Out of the remaining 2,586 caravans, 641 are on tolerated sites which is usually land owned by local authorities.
Can the Minister say to what extent the Department of the Environment will uphold appeals in relation to those tolerated sites? If the gypsies own the land themselves, apply for planning permission and it is rejected by the local authority, will the department be more generous in upholding their appeals? In the case of tolerated sites, land owned by local authorities, the situation speaks for itself. If local authorities are prepared to tolerate the presence of gypsies on that land, why cannot they then grant planning permission and make the sites legal? If they could do that, there would immediately be an extra 283 plus 641 pitches—a total of 924—at the stroke of a pen which is as much as was provided by local authorities and the private sector together in two-and-a-half years.
The other matter I want to raise, which is quite interesting, is: what happens when we assume that the private sector manages to double its contribution to the provision of sites but we then also allow local authorities to continue as they have done in the past? We can extrapolate the figures for the four years between 1990 and 1994, and assume that the doubled private sector contribution comes into force only in the years 1996 onwards. The reason for that is that structure plans take a long time to amend. From the inquiries I made of various local authorities, it appears that that process is around 18 months to two years down the line. For example, in the case of Kent, it does not expect revised structure plans to incorporate the advice given in Circular 194 to come into operation before the beginning of 1996. If immediately after that the local authority starts giving planning permissions on a more generous scale than in the past, it will be a remarkable achievement. I am therefore being optimistic when I say we should assume that the private sector doubles its contribution from 1996 onwards. I am also making the assumption that we have the same contribution from the private sector as we had in the past and the growth in the gypsy population continues at the rate of 3 per cent. as it has done in the past four years.
On those rather optimistic assumptions we shall reduce the number of unauthorised caravans from 3,800 in 1994 to just under 3,000 in the year 2000. Can we really afford to do without the public sector contribution? Even if we make the optimistic assumption that local authorities continue provision at

1539
the same rate as in the past and the private sector contribution doubles, we are still only gradually whittling away at the backlog of unauthorised sites to the extent of something under 1,000 pitches between now and the turn of the century. We shall not reach the bottom of the pile of unauthorised encampments before around 2015 and 2020. We are therefore looking at a very long-term operation even if all the resources in the country are harnessed towards the solution of the problem. If we suddenly strike out the local authority sites and say we do not want them any more and find the assumptions made in relation to the increased contribution by the private sector are not realised, then we really are in shtook. It will be difficult to revive the contribution of the public sector when we find that gypsies are not able to obtain planning permission and that the optimistic assumptions made by the Government are not realised.
For heaven's sake let us not run the risk of being left with little provision from the private sector and only the dregs of what remains outstanding from the stages one and two applications to be completed in the public sector. If we do that we shall be storing up a legacy of trouble for the future. There will be not only the 3,800 caravans on unauthorised sites that exist at the moment; but also the 3 per cent. per annum increase of caravans arising from a natural increase in the gypsy population all coming on to the unauthorised sites, making nuisances in the neighbourhoods of settled populations and causing problems for the next generation because the children from the sites will not be properly looked after from either a health point of view or in terms of education. This is the last chance. If the Minister does not give way on this amendment or on that of my noble kinsman, which we shall discuss in a moment, we shall be storing up serious problems which our successors will live to regret.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I intervene briefly to urge the noble Earl to reply to a specific point made a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg; namely, the quotation from a ministerial circular saying that there is a national interest in providing accommodation for gypsies. The answer to the question is either yes or no. If the answer to the question is yes, and that remains the policy of the Government, I am bound to say that we are proceeding in an extraordinary way in being asked to pass a specific section of the Bill.
I should like to add just one point to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, when he listed the increased public expenditure which arises as a result of this part of the Bill. I refer to the issue of the costs in relation to enforcement of this part of the Bill. There will be substantial additional expenditure by police forces throughout the country. As the noble Earl may recall, I tabled a question requiring a Written Answer asking about the number of new criminal offences being created and what discussion there had been with the Association of Chief Police Officers concerning the training and other costs in the implementation of this and other clauses in the Bill. The noble Earl indicated that discussions on this matter were still proceeding—in
1540
other words, apparently the Government have no idea what the increased public expenditure will be. That related only to training, but the operational costs will be very substantial.
When my noble friend Lord Avebury asked whether there had been discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the noble Earl's answer was that Clause 73 would be triggered by the local authority and not by the police. Clause 73 would be triggered by action from the local authority, but the police have to be present, as the noble Earl well knows, if there is likely to be any breach of the peace. For the reason given by my noble friend when he indicated that there is already an increasing level of violence occurring now at some of these sites, it is highly likely that the costs to the police will be very substantial. Therefore, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would answer the specific question which my noble friend Lord Avebury asked him: have there been any discussions with the police on what they believe will be the increased costs which they will have to face as a result of the passage of this section of the Bill? We deserve an answer to that.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, over the weeks I have listened to the wide discussion which has taken place about the problem of gypsies and about the problem raised in the other place many years ago concerning the need for sites provided by local authorities via government grants. As time went on, it was borne on me that in different parts of the country there is a different problem.
I want to rehearse the problem which I lived with for 30 years in inner city Leeds. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I had phone calls at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning from councillors asking what they could do about the problem that had arisen. The issue that I put to the noble Earl is this: have the Government considered the particular problem of inner city areas where in my view, private enterprise—I have no objection if it provides sites—is unlikely to provide such sites? It does not provide much else so why it should suddenly wake up and provide sites for gypsies, I do not know.
It is an explosive issue. It was even worse at one time in the days of what was called in local authority jargon "slum clearance". At that time, as is always the way, those houses tended to be occupied by older ladies because of the demographic situation. There were the problems which arose from stealing lead flashing and that kind of thing. There was police involvement and the relatively recent problem of near riot when new houses aré built and then alongside, in a field, caravans arrive with television sets and all the rest of it.
I accept fully—and I know from my experience in Leeds—that there are genuine gypsies who have been going backwards and forwards to the fairs in the Dales for hundreds of years. But I am talking about a different problem which has arisen. The issue is this: will what the Government intend do something for these areas? I do not believe that it will. The city council provided one very good site. It was in what I used to call "my area". The council tried to provide three others in other parts of the city. But the residents of the more affluent parts

1541
of the city said, "Not likely; we are not having gypsy sites in our area". The problem which will arise is that there will not be private sites either.
I have risen to my feet simply to ask whether the Government are considering, with the Department of the Environment, the particular problems of inner city areas. They are different from those of Wiltshire and Avon and the problems which arise in country areas. These inner city areas have real problems. To remove the duty on local authorities to provide sites will cause real problems. I hope that the Government have considered the particular problem which arises in the area which I once represented.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has some difficulty in understanding why the Government were proposing to abandon a system of public site provision which apparently had alleviated the experiences of many gypsy families who had no lawful accommodation. This was the problem which was presented at Committee stage by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I believe that he encapsulated his views or characterised them, by saying that local authorities have failed to obey the requirement laid on them by law, so, in the Government's view, let us repeal the law. That was the onus of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
I would offer this alternative explanation. The Government have been looking for better and fairer ways to achieve the original objectives of the Caravan Sites Act 1986.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, 1968.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry, 1968. My noble and learned friend is perfectly correct, as usual. That Act had two objectives: the provision of adequate sites for gypsies and the control of unauthorised camping. I would be the first to say that this is not an easy issue; it is one with great social impact. That system has been in operation for some 24 years, and the fact is that levels of unauthorised camping —in terms of numbers of gypsy caravans on unauthorised sites reflected in the January counts carried out by local authorities in England and Wales—have hardly changed since then. Unauthorised camping has been virtually the same and can cause serious nuisance, distress and offence and the Government have made it clear that they must take action to control this nuisance.
I remember the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool referring with some feeling at Committee stage to the prejudice and hatred which gypsies experience. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees has insinuated that this evening by the problems which he has had in an inner city area. I do not deny at all that prejudice exists—of course it does—and much of it is irrational and unjustified.
But the public disquiet about unauthorised camping cannot be attributed solely to irrational prejudices. Unlawful gypsy encampments can cause immense nuisance and desecration, and there are many gypsies
1542
and other itinerant groups who pay scant regard to the rights of other people to the proper and lawful enjoyment of their land and the natural amenity of the countryside. Respect for the lifestyle of gypsies will not be increased while this kind of thing is allowed to continue.
The Government had to decide to do something. We decided to look again at the policy of public site provision against the backdrop of unabated levels of unauthorised camping. I do not see anything unprincipled about that.
The assimilation of gypsies into what one might call the settled community has never been the Government's aim. The Government recognise that many people will wish to continue to pursue a nomadic form of life. Our intention is not to discourage those people or to make their lives a misery. The nomadic lifestyle itself causes many problems. It affects access to important health and welfare services and interrupts children's education. It affects those people who undertake that lifestyle and also those who do not follow that lifestyle, but who find themselves affected by it.
All these problems result from people who wish to be nomads. That is the choice of the nomad. All the Government can do is their best to address these problems which confront them and to try to alleviate them both sympathetically and with understanding. I do not believe that our proposals will necessarily exacerbate the difficulties which nomadic people already experience.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does not what the noble Earl has just said entail that evictions should only take place where the unlawful encampment causes nuisance or injury to amenity? Does he not accept that, under the Bill, evictions may take place where there is no nuisance and no injury to amenity whatever?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes, that is perfectly true. As I have explained, it is intended that the guidance should state that local authorities should use the power at their own discretion and according to reason. In other words, local authorities should not chase up every gypsy just because he is there. The fact is that in law a person may not have a legal right to be somewhere but, in practice, it will be the local authority that will have to use its discretion.
The conclusion which we reached, after extensive consultation, was that local authority site provision was not likely ever to meet the apparently growing demand for sites. This was not simply a case of sparing some local authorities the continuing embarrassment of not having complied with their duty.
The noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether it was not in the national interest that gypsies should be satisfactorily accom-modated. Of course, it is in the national interest that they should be satisfactorily accommodated, but it is the Government's view that public provision has now reached a satisfactory level and that further provision should be made by the gypsies themselves through the planning system. We have never said that gypsies should not be satisfactorily accommodated. Over 70 per cent. of gypsy caravans are on authorised sites. Of the

1543
remaining 30 per cent., 10 per cent. are on the gypsies' own land without planning permission. Therefore, a great deal has been done from the public point of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, then asked about the 60 per cent. of local authorities which have failed to fulfil their duty. Although 38 per cent. of authorities have provided adequate accommodation to meet the requirements of all the gypsies residing in their, area, that does not mean that the remaining 60 per cent. have not provided any sites at all. Many sites have been provided in those areas even if the full needs have not been met. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred to the remarks of my honourable friend Mr. Maclean and tried to draw a difference between his remarks and mine. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no such difference.
Local authorities will retain their discretionary powers under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 to provide further sites if they wish to do so. Reference has been made to the possible closure of local authority sites. I can advise your Lordships that we would expect local authorities in England and Wales to maintain their 300 or so existing sites. Local authorities have statutory housing duties towards homeless people and if they close their sites they may have to accept some gypsy families as statutorily homeless—and they would not do that in a hurry. County councils have obligations under the Children Act to provide services to children and their families. They would have great difficulties in discharging those obligations if they closed their sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to local authority applications for grant. The recent influx of local authority applications for grant has been triggered by the Department of the Environment's letter of 27th January this year to the local authorities drawing their attention to the withdrawal of grant-making powers in the Bill. Many authorities believed that the Bill would receive Royal Assent before the summer recess and, as a result, many of the applications have been ill prepared. The few that have been well prepared are in respect of sites which have been in the pipeline for a number of years.
The noble Lord was also concerned about the extent to which the Department of the Environment would uphold planning appeals for gypsies on their own land. The noble Lord will realise that I could not possibly generalise in relation to tolerated sites which might become the subject of planning appeals. However, it may well be relevant that the land in question has been used as a site for a substantial period and the local authority had not previously objected to it. Each case has to be considered on its merits. There are sites on both public and private land which do not have planning permission or a site licence but where gypsies can camp free of harassment. Those tolerated sites vary. There are places where a single gypsy family is allowed by a farmer to camp on his land on a seasonal basis or during a horse fair. In that connection, I refer to Swan Farm in Sevenoaks in Kent, where gypsies have been camping on their own land but without planning permission since 1973. There are even non-tolerated sites. One such site in the borough of Stratford is of long duration.
1544
It seemed to us that it would be wrong to maintain what was in effect an open-ended commitment to provide sites at the public expense for all those gypsy families without accommodation, whether or not this was what they actually wanted.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that the grant was in the national interest. He must remember that the 100 per cent. grant for gypsy site provision was originally intended to be available for five years only so as to stimulate site provision by local authorities. It has been paid now for over 15 years, and it is clear that local authorities have come to depend on the grant entirely. I do not think that there is any principled reason for maintaining a grant for ever—a grant which is unprecedented in the public sector because it is a 100 per cent. grant.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that that cost is minimal compared with the cost of providing social security and so forth. With respect to the noble Lord, I thought that that was a bad argument. One can always say that there is a very good reason for continuing to spend money because by not doing so one would spend more. However, this grant has been paid for three times as long as was originally intended. The fact is that more and more people are deciding to become nomads—I have explained that the number has increased by 40 per cent. since 1981—but there is no reason why a person's individual choice to become a nomad should necessarily become the responsibility both of the local authority (which has to provide the site) and of the taxpayer (who has to pay for it).
Lord Avebury: My Lords, although this was mentioned in Committee, the noble Earl obviously cannot be aware that as a result of a recent court decision, a person who becomes a nomad voluntarily, and who has not been one in the past, does not qualify for the definition of "gypsy" under the 1968 Act.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is referring to New Age travellers who, as he knows, are different from gypsies.
We know, from our discussions with the National Gypsy Council, that many gypsies would prefer to establish their own sites rather than to live on council estates, which have to cater for many different family groups in order to achieve reasonable economies of scale.
Gypsies are not always the close-knit community which they are sometimes portrayed as being. Animosity between different family groups is not unknown among them, with all sorts of weapons being used by them to settle their problems —like guns, shotguns and even chain saws and scythes—so they are not necessarily a totally harmonious group. This causes significant management problems on local authority sites, and is the chief reason why some gypsies shun these sites. Private sites, on the other hand, tend to be smaller than council sites and can usually accommodate single family groups better.
We thought that the right approach to the problem, and the one which was most in accord with the aspirations of gypsies themselves, was to take steps to encourage more gypsies to establish their own sites

1545
through the planning system and to repeal the system of mandatory site provision which was not providing adequate sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the police. The provisions do not have any significant manpower implications for the police. The police sometimes assist local authorities with forced evictions, but such evictions are rare.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question on that last point. Is that the view of the Home Office or is it the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is a fact. The fact is that such evictions are rare. Whether a gypsy is being evicted or a landlord is evicting a trespasser from his land, it is a civil action and the police are called in only to ensure that there is fair play.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, referred to urban areas where fewer than 10 per cent. of gypsies are on lawful sites. As I understand it, 46 per cent. are now on council sites and 24 per cent. are on private sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, was also concerned about planning. We have taken steps to encourage private site provision. The Department of the Environment's Circular 1/94, issued on 5th January, provides a framework under which gypsies will be able to develop their own sites.
Some concern was expressed in Committee about whether private site provision through the planning system could ever provide enough sites quickly in order to alleviate the problems which are being experienced by gypsy families. We think that the planning system is capable of providing sites. Indeed, it has already been successful in doing so. There are now 3,306 gypsy caravans on authorised private sites in England and Wales. We expect that successful provision to continue and even to be enhanced by the new circular. It advises local planning authorities to include in their develop-ment plans policies to take account of gypsies' accommodation needs. Where an authority's failure to have regard to government policy results in a refusal of planning permission, the authority risks having its decision overturned on appeal.
The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have to be consulted in the preparation of the local authorities' draft development plans. The Secretaries of State can object to a draft plan. They will intervene formally if there are unresolved conflicts which do not appear to be justified by local circumstances. The process of commenting upon authorities' proposed policies is already under way.
The planning system is fair. I have no doubt that there will continue to be local opposition to the development of gypsy caravan sites. We do not alter the public's attitude to such things overnight, but we intend to ensure that the gypsies' planning applications are treated fairly. We hope that more gypsies will have confidence in the system and will try to establish sites in accordance with the usual procedures rather than in defiance of them, as too often happens at present. We expect, too, that the public will see less reason to oppose the development of
1546
a small private site which caters for one family than they would in the case of a council site which would accommodate several families.
Local authorities, and the majority of private landowners, are not likely to be greatly concerned about a small, unobtrusive, unauthorised encampment on their land. In addition to the authorised sites which are available at the moment, there are also many tolerated sites on private and public land where gypsies camp without fear of immediate eviction. To camp lawfully on land for a short period, a gypsy has only to obtain the occupier's permission.
I know that this is a controversial subject. The Government's proposals offer a realistic way forward. I cannot promise that there will be no unauthorised camping or that in 20 years time all gypsies will be accommodated happily on authorised sites as a result of these proposals, but it is the right thing to do. It is correct that local authorities should have regard to what happens in their areas. It is right that they should have regard to the conditions of the countryside in which everyone has a part to play and which others wish to enjoy. It is also right that the gypsies should be able to find places of their own, but that is fundamentally the responsibility of those who undertake a nomadic life. It is not necessary that the local authorities or the taxpayer should have unlimited liability. They have both contributed considerably over the past 15 years.
5 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I find the Minister's reply wholly unsatisfactory. He appeared not to have followed or to have engaged with my proposition that £4 million or £5 million a year is the figure that applies to grants. I was not contrasting that with social security payments at large or social expenditure at large; I was contrasting it with the cost to the taxpayer of all forms of support for social housing for the settled community, and was inviting him to accept that the figure for that was £4 billion in comparison to £4 million.
I intervened to ask the Minister whether his emphasis on nuisance or injury to amenity caused by unlawful encampments was not misplaced as a justification for these powers of eviction. We received no answer to the proposition that there is ample power in the law already to deal with nuisance or injury to amenity from unlawful encampments. So that is not independent justification for the power to evict. The Minister was good enough to acknowledge that eviction could take place in circumstances in which there was no nuisance or injury to amenity, but expressed the somewhat pious hope that, in accordance with guidance to be given to local authorities, they might, in their absolute discretion, abstain in some cases from evicting where there was no nuisance or injury to amenity. Does not that mean that the law will be arbitrary; that its application will vary from district to district; and from the mood of one local authority to another? Will it not be fundamentally offensive to justice, because similar cases will not be dealt with in like manner across the country?
At some point I had the thought that the Minister was defending the working of the 1968 Act, the primary duty

1547
of which he is repealing. As he pointed out, one ought not to be too misled by the figure of 60 per cent. of local authorities which did not achieve designation. They may nor. have been providing sufficient sites to achieve designation, but, none the less, they were providing sites. But at the same time as he was defending the working of the Act, it appeared to me that he was contradicting himself in justifying the repeal of its primary duty.
I have to say with great respect to the Minister, who in some contexts I would readily accept is a strong supporter of civil liberties, that I suspect that the inadequacy of his reply is because his heart does not accompany his brief and that he is perhaps a pressed man in defence of what, in good conscience, he must be incapable of believing is defensible or capable of being defended by rational argument.
By introducing the amendments I have provided the essential factual background for the House to come to a judgment on the next important group of amendments to be moved primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 61, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) This section is subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 159.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 208A, 209A and 212A. The substantive and consequential amendment is Amendment No. 212A. It delays for five years the repeal of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. As your Lordships will know, the main effect of the 1968 Act is to lay a duty on the local authority to provide sites for genuine gypsies—genuine gypsies being those people as defined by a recent Court of Appeal decision. I must make it clear that they are not hippies, New Age travellers or any of the like.
The main reason why the amendment is so essential is that it will prevent genuine gypsies from being moved from one illegal site to another. Without it, I see local authorities being greatly reluctant to move on gypsies under Clause 72 which it has been decided should stand part of the Bill, and for which I am grateful.
The amendments would, first, give the Government's policy of gypsies providing their own sites time to work, especially as local authorities will have to redirect their planning policies and structure plans to accommodate that welcome idea. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, mentioned in a previous amendment the recent planning guidelines that seem to run counter to providing sites in the future.
Secondly, the amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to revise the method of providing sites if it is found that the new policy is proving difficult. Many of your Lordships have expressed doubts as to whether gypsies will be able, or even allowed, to provide their own sites. The amendment provides a fall-back provision.
Thirdly, the proposals need cost the Treasury not one penny. Indeed, as I suspect my noble friend Lady Faithfull will explain, they could save the taxpayer money.
Fourthly, it gives the Secretary of State the power to release local authorities from their duty to provide sites as, when and where he or she thinks fit. That is fair only to those local authorities which have already struggled to do so. It would also help with the problem of the inner cities, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, will comment on the problems of the local authorities which have provided sites.
Fifthly, it would give the Government and local authorities time to make a thorough search for satisfactory sites. MoD and forestry sites were suggested in Committee. Sixthly, the real hardship to people such as children and pregnant women, as acknowledged on Second Reading (col. 509) by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, would be solved to the relief not least of the children's societies; in particular, Save the Children. That matter was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. Seventhly, my honourable friend Tony Baldry said that the Government's proposals in this part of the Bill are aimed at securing the original objectives of the 1968 Act by other means. This amendment would help the Government to achieve that objective.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has taken great trouble sympathetically to discuss this amendment with me. I do not know how, with such a massive Bill before him, he finds the time but I hope that he has been able to persuade himself—which I do not believe was difficult —and more importantly the Government to accept this small but constructive amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, in order to clarify the position in my mind, I wish to ask my noble friend various questions. First, I speak as a former local government chief officer—though, admittedly, that was some time ago. I also speak on behalf of the well-being and the education of the children and the health of the family.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that under the Children Act 1989 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 the local authorities have been consulted and have agreed to the repeal of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. I am in some difficulty about the issue, and it is the same difficulty as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. If gypsies are evicted from a site and there aré problems in respect of the health, education and care of the children, which authority will be responsible?
Under the Children Act, the place of residence denotes the responsible authority. If a family is moved on and problems arise will the authority whose area they have left be responsible or will it be the authority into whose area they are moving? I can see confusion between authorities as to who will be responsible for the problems that arise in such families.
Have the Government considered what will happen if there is a reorganisation of local authorities? If unitary authorities are introduced great difficulties will arise

1549
because many small authorities will want other authorities to be responsible. We must clarity exactly who, under the Acts, will be responsible if an eviction takes place. I understand that the evictions take place quickly. If that is so, will guidance be circulated stating how much notice of eviction should be given, first, to the authority from whose area the family has been evicted and, secondly, to the authority into whose area they are going?
If families are moved on quickly the children will not stay permanently at one school. When families are evicted what will happen to the children? Will arrangements be made for them immediately to be admitted to a school in the area to which they have moved or will it be expected that they will attend the school on whose roll they appear?
If a family is quickly evicted from one area to another its members will not be registered with a new doctor. There may be disease in the family or a woman may be pregnant. They will not be registered with a doctor in the new area but they would have been registered had they stayed in the area in which they had been living.
I support my noble friend Lord Stanley and agree that the whole exercise needs to be much more carefully planned and thought out. It must be more closely considered with the statutory and voluntary organisa-tions and the Association of Directors of Social Services. I believe that a survey must be carried out showing where the sites are.
I make a plea to my noble friend and ask whether it would be wise to defer the matter for five years so that the issue of who will be responsible in the various circumstances can be carefully and properly worked out.
Let us remember the terrible troubles that arose as a result of the clearance of the Highlands of Scotland during the last century. I ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether all those issues have been considered, together with the legal position with regard to the Acts of Parliament which must be administered under this extraordinarily difficult situation? Will he support my noble friend Lord Stanley in deferring the measure and planning the whole position carefully and with thought?
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 124A and its allied amendments. It is a pleasure to be associated once again with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in an area in which he has shown great commitment for a number of years. The Minister may recall that some three years ago we were both anxious about the lack of provision for the control of New Age travellers. Although our request to amend Section 39 of the Public Order Act then fell on deaf ears, the Government have since paid heed to our pleas. For that I express my thanks and, more importantly, the thanks of the blighted communities in the south, the west and in Wales whose lives will be made much better as a result of new measures.
The problem before us today is altogether different. We are dealing with traditional travelling communities, the composition of which has been accurately and usefully described recently in the courts. That has been
1550
a matter of great satisfaction. The rationale behind the Government's proposals is that the Caravan Sites Act 1968—which I and many others believe was an imaginative and constructive Act and I bow towards its author, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury —has failed and that a fundamental change is necessary to the way in which we view this problem which, of course, will always be with us. In accordance with their beliefs, employment of the private sector is seen as the answer rather than government involvement by our local authorities.
The first question which has to be asked—indeed, it may be the only question which has to be asked—is whether the Act has failed. I do not believe that it has. While it is true that only 38 per cent. of English local authorities have acquired designated status—that is, have met government requirements—in the provision of suitable sites for gypsies, the fact is that the amount of accommodation has increased over the years. Therefore, probably some two-thirds of travelling folk now have access to an authorised site.
We have heard already today some of the figures. However, like good tunes, they bear repeating. At the beginning of the year, there were nearly 4,000 caravans on unauthorised sites, of which 1,252 were on land actually owned by gypsies but without the relevant planning permission. Of those, 283 were on tolerated sites, of which we have heard much today. Those are sites about which the local authority would be unlikely to take any action and where, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, local authorities may well be prodded by government into granting planning permission.
The subject was trawled over knowledgeably in great detail in Committee by others far more expert than myself. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, spoke on it today. It is perhaps interesting that in an area where, for obvious reasons, it is notoriously difficult to obtain entirely reliable statistics, there is an avalanche of information, although some of it is conflicting and therefore unhelpful. The House will be relieved to hear that I shall confine myself to brief, general comments on the virtues of the amendment.
The advantage of freezing until 1999 the existing provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is that it will keep in place the supporting props which protect those communities while at the same time providing a breathing space to see whether the private sector can deliver the goods. What can be more rational than that? What can be wrong with that? Surely that is a reasonable stance to adopt.
I share the anxieties of some other noble Lords that gypsies, through their tradition and upbringing, may have difficulties in relation to coping with the complexities and frustrations of, for example, planning procedures. I know that I cannot cope with them, so it may well be that some gypsies may also find it difficult. It may be said that the gypsy council and other bodies would possess the necessary expertise to purchase sites on behalf of those communities. But they would surely be able to purchase only a comparatively small number of sites and they might be overwhelmed by the sheer weight of applications.

1551
In that context, I take up the noble Lord's plea for an examination of disused Ministry of Defence sites. I know that that is always a tricky subject but they are proliferating week by week. Although using disused army camps and airfields for that purpose may awaken our worst NIMBY instincts, many of those sites are in relatively out of the way places. They probably have running water and hard standing. I should like the problem to be examined with much more urgency.
The crux of the matter is that the Government say that despite the expenditure of £89 million from the public purse since 1976, the number of gypsies on unauthorised sites has increased. The Minister said that. For a number of reasons, regrettably that may be so. But surely the answer is not to withdraw all support and remove the obligation on local authorities to be involved; to say in effect to those authorities which complied with the provisions of the 1968 Act, "You were conned. Bad luck", and to those which failed, "You were right all along to hold out". That does not sound like a very moral attitude.
I should add that in conversations with both county and local authorities, I have yet to find anyone who agrees with the proposals. If the provisions of the Bill become law, the words of a certain Minister of Health prior to the 1968 Act may, I fear, again become a reality. He said:
"For most traveller families there is nowhere they can put their homes; they are only within the law when moving along a road".
In Committee the noble Earl said:
"It is easy to paint a bleak picture of the future in which local authorities wield their new powers like zealots and every unauthorised camper is repeatedly moved on. However, I do not believe that that is likely to be the case".—[Official Report, 7/6/94; col. 1123.]
The Minister is an eminently reasonable and compassionate man. We all know that; I certainly do. In general terms, what he says may be true. But a belief is not the same as the letter of the law. If the provisions are passed there will be a duty on the authorities to enforce them with all the attendant stresses and miseries which they will bring to gypsies with regard to education, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, health and peace of mind. How can it do otherwise than to lead to more illegal camping and, therefore, greater friction within countryside communities? That is why I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is inviting your Lordships to postpone for as long as five years the provisions contained in the Bill affecting gypsies and, one must say, other wandering people. My noble friend says that he is inspired to do that because of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case which occurred just before our last debate on this matter. Noble Lords will recollect that several speakers, in particular, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—and I believe that we all agreed with them —were anxious that the people traditionally known, respected and liked as gypsies should not suffer in any way from legislation which we pass.
But there is a problem. It is a problem which was faced by the Court of Appeal. It is that besides the
1552
original and genuine gypsies, there are a number of people, mostly of native British descent, who took to the wandering life following the invention of the motor vehicle. They were not such worthy people. They were described as didicois. Now we have a further and recent development of the wandering life; for example, the New Age travellers.
The feeling became fairly clear in our last debate —and I hope that your Lordships will agree that we should now make it absolutely so, as the Court of Appeal certainly did—that we must treat all those people in the same way.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but the Court of Appeal did not say that. It made clear who was and who was not a gypsy. The gypsy to whom the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred, certainly fell into that category. New Age travellers do not. They would have to be travelling with a view to trying to find work.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to explain further. I have here the report of the Court of Appeal. The report states:
"It was accepted that originally and etymologically nomads were people who wandered in search of pasture for their animals, but that meaning had long since disappeared. It was therefore no longer permissible to restrict the statutory definition of 'gypsies' to those who led a wandering life with an economic purpose in mind".
Lord Justice Neill made various other comments in his judgment which are relevant but of which I shall spare your Lordships the repetition. However, I should like to refer to the conclusion which was supported by the two accompanying Lord Justices:
"In his Lordship's judgment, in the context of Part II of the 1968 Act the definition of gypsies in section 16 imported the requirement that there should be some recognisable connection between the wandering or travelling and the means whereby the persons concerned made or sought their livelihood Persons, or individuals, who moved from place to place merely as the fancy might take them and without any connection between the movement and their means of livelihood fell outside those statutory definitions".
Thereafter, the report stated that,
"his Lordship read Section 6(1) of the 1968 Act"—
which was referred to in the earlier discussion and which says—
"the duty of the county council was to provide sites for those who
came in cohesive groups and who had some purpose and pattern for their wanderings".
It seems that my noble friend and I may have been at cross purposes. As my noble friend rightly pointed out, it is perfectly clear that there is a distinction between the various types of wandering groups. But we have to bear in mind the fact that all those types of wanderers exist. Whether or not we legislate differently for them is a matter in respect of which we have so far relied upon the Government. I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter.
However, bearing in mind the decision of the Court of Appeal and the views expressed by most noble Lords at the earlier stage, I should have thought that it was unnecessary to postpone the Government's provisions for five years in order to consider the matter still further. Indeed, it has been considered so much over the past year or so in both Houses. With deep respect to my noble friend, with whom I so often agree—sometimes in

1553
disagreement with the Government, as he well knows —I should have thought that on this occasion we ought to accept the position as we have so far decided it and not postpone further consideration for five years which, with all the factors involved, might be a rather agonising period.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with great respect, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has put the facts of the case quite correctly. There is no difference between him and those of us who attached our names to the amendment. Our purpose is to ensure that the public authority provision for gypsies, which is to be prolonged for a few extra years, is restricted to those whom we may, in shorthand terms, call the "genuine gypsies" and not extended to New Age travellers or to persons like a correspondent of mine who took up the nomadic way of life voluntarily in his early twenties by buying a van and taking to the road.
Such people should not expect Parliament to require the local authority to make provision for their accommodation. That is something which is not within their traditions or customs because, by definition, they were living in settled accommodation until they embarked upon that different way of life. Therefore, it is totally unreasonable for them to expect the taxpayer or local authorities to support them in what they arbitrarily decide to do. They must fend for themselves. I believe that we are at one on that aspect of the matter.
However, we must face the fact that there are about 3,800 caravans belonging to gypsies and not to New Age travellers or voluntary hippies who take to the road in the manner that I described. Those caravans are still on unauthorised encampments and provision has to be made for them in one way or another. I was glad to hear the Minister say in response to the last amendment that he believed it was in the national interest for us to deal with the problem as rapidly as possible.
Incidentally, in parenthesis, perhaps I may point out to the Minister that he was wrong to say that there were two purposes to the 1968 Act; namely, the provision of adequate accommodation for gypsies and the control of unauthorised sites. If the noble Earl refers to the Act, he will see that Part I protects individuals living in mobile homes on conventional sites from unauthorised eviction without a court order. I only mention that fact because it is frequently forgotten that that legislation contained a further important provision for people living in mobile homes. It is still on the statute book and it is not proposed to repeal it.
The Minister said that he did not think that the Government's proposals would exacerbate the position; in other words, he did not think that they would create a worse position regarding unauthorised encampments than would have obtained if we had allowed the local authorities to continue carrying out their work for another five years as proposed by my noble kinsman. I do not know how on earth the noble Earl can reach such a conclusion in logic when, looking back over the past few years, it will be seen that local authorities have been providing roughly 200 pitches a year. Moreover,
1554
although he was rather scathing about it, proposals have been submitted to the department for something like 2,000 additional pitches.
The Minister dismissed the latter by saying that some of those applications were put in very hurriedly because, when authorities received the letter of 27th January, they realised that the chopper was coming down and that they had to submit them before the deadline. However, the 541 pitches which were the subject of stage 1 approvals between 27th January and 4th March did not have to be submitted in any detail; indeed, they can be developed at the leisure of the local authorities. Incidentally, the 100 per cent. grant still continues to apply to them ad infinitum. There is no time limit within which those stage 1 applications, which have been approved in principle, have to be turned into stage 2 detailed, thoroughly costed and thought-out proposals. Therefore, if they continue down the road of turning the 541 stage 1 approvals into stage 2 proposals and do the same for the 1,402 pitches which are provided for in the applications for stage 1 approvals agreed within the past 18 months prior to 27th January, the local authorities will continue for another two years. I have had the latter confirmed by the discussions that I have had with senior officials in the department. If there is any discussion on the matter, the facts can easily be ascertained.
As regards the public sector borrowing requirement for 1994–95, I believe that the same amount has been included for provision of 100 per cent. grant as has been the case in previous years. Unfortunately—and I discovered this from the Minister's reply—we shall not have a cut-off point in 1994–95 when suddenly, on the passing of the legislation, the provision of sites by local authorities comes to an end and we become entirely dependent on the private sector. The reason is that there are sites in the pipeline which will continue, as I said, to attract the 100 per cent. grant.
All my noble friend is seeking is a small extension. In fact, it is not five years because, as we may well agree, for the next two years those applications in the pipeline will continue to trickle through and the local authority contribution will probably be much the same as it has been over the past five or 10 years. It is for the following three years thereafter that my noble kinsman is saying, "Let us continue to lay this obligation on local authorities, simultaneously with the increased contribu-tion of the private sector. If we find that the private sector comes up to scratch and that it can increase its contribution by at least 100 per cent., then we can afford to discontinue the obligation on the local authorities".
I hope the Minister has studied the figures which I passed across to him. I make no apology for repeating what I said on the previous amendment because it is important that your Lordships should understand. Let us suppose we agree that the private contribution is doubled from 1996 onwards, that the contribution by local authorities continues at the same level, and that the gypsy population increases by 3 per cent. a year as it has done in the past few years. According to my calculations —anyone, including the Minister, can dispute them, if they see fit—by the year 2000 we shall only have reduced the number of gypsy caravans on unauthorised encampments from the present level of just under 4,000

1555
to just under 3,000. It will be the year 2015 or 2020 before the aspiration—shared, I believe, by the Minister and everyone who has spoken—of ending the menace of unauthorised encampments is finally accomplished.
Surely, when faced with such a long-term task, the last thing we want to do is to tell anyone who is making a contribution to stop. Why not allow, as my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley proposes, the local authorities to continue exactly as they have done in the past for the next five years? Then, by the turn of the century, we shall see whether the kind of figures which I have written on the piece of paper are realised. If they are realised—they contain some optimistic assumptions —surely we will be able to say, with the benefit of hindsight, that it would have been absolute madness to have scrapped the contribution that local authorities were making in 1994 and to have depended entirely on the private sector alone.
This is the last opportunity we shall have to consider this matter. If we leave it now, it will be no good your Lordships saying to the Government in two years' time, "Oh what a pity that we did not think the contribution of local authorities was important". There will not be any time for legislation to reinstate that provision. Even if there were time for legislation, I hardly think one could crank the local authority effort up to the kind of level it has achieved at the moment.
Before we leave the amendment, we should say that some local authorities have done a good job. I have a pamphlet issued by Cardiff which describes how that authority has tackled its gypsy problem. I believe that the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, has made enormous efforts. Leeds has tried genuinely to solve the problem of unauthorised encampments. However, there are places—I make no apology for saying that Avon has not made an adequate contribution in this regard—which have not made adequate contributions. The Minister knows that two other authorities have been the subject of directions under Section 9. He says that he does not wish to issue any more directions under Section 9 because it is a power of last resort. But is it not unfair that when some local authorities have made provision for all the gypsies residing in, or resorting to, their areas, we say in the Bill that the ones which have failed, and the ones to which I have referred with the worst record as regards giving planning permission for private sites will now be excused all future contributions? I do not think noble Lords would agree that that is fair. I hope that they will accept the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am in discussion with a number of people working with gypsies and I may wish to say more about that at Third Reading. I fully agree with the proposals of the Government; I certainly voted in support of Clause 72 as it stands. I take heart from the fact that a number of times my noble friend Lord Ferrers has talked about these provisions being administered reasonably. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, we all want to remove the problem of the use of unauthorised sites.
1556
There seem to me to be two reasons why the time delay is valid, if I may answer my noble friend Lord Renton. The first is that we still have a large number of mobile families who do not have access to authorised sites. Whether they represent a quarter or a third of the total, they constitute a large number. Therefore action is still required. I am glad that there will be scope for the private sector to help meet the provision Secondly, I refer to the length of time taken by planning applications. They can go on for years. That is why we need the delay in order. It will give the private sector time to lodge, and succeed in, planning applications. I was glad to hear my noble friend say, I believe, that he has encouraged planning applications to proceed. Nevertheless, they will take time. This seems to me the reason underlying the amendment. My noble friend the Minister talked about a number of planning applications in the pipeline, thereby indicating the time they take.
I am worried that local authorities will have to identify in their structure plans places that are suitable for gypsy sites. How long will that take? It may take up to two years in itself. I am worried particularly about the provision for children—my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to that—and for pregnant mothers. I would like my noble friend the Minister to confirm that his reasonable policy will take account of pregnant mothers for a period of, say, at least a couple of months on either side of the birth; otherwise great hardship can arise.
Access to authorised accommodation is required for children in mobile families. They must have stable and suitable accommodation that is appropriate for them. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, this is equally relevant as regards schooling, GP and health services and other community services. If there is to be a continual moving on from unauthorised sites to other sites, these children will be deprived of such facilities. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will express support for the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I had no intention when I entered the Chamber of taking part in this debate. It is only since listening to the arguments that I am bound to say that I see great merit in my noble friend's amendment. It seems to me that while attempting to find a positive solution to what is unquestionably a difficult problem, that problem is unlikely to be resolved unless there is some positive help from local authorities to help gypsies find suitable site accommodation.
I believe my noble friend Lord Renton tried to distinguish between the genuine gypsy and the non-genuine gypsy. I am not in a position to be able to say whether or not that has been defined clearly. Certainly, however, I am aware of the position as regards genuine gypsies. It is a great shame that much of their reputation has been damaged by New Age travellers. The Government are being what I can only describe as optimistic if they think that by lifting the duty on local authorities in favour of private site provision through local landowners, provision will be made in this regard. There is little chance of that happening, particularly in view of the fact that landowners who are expected to provide these sites will find it difficult to distinguish between genuine gypsies

1557
and New Age travellers. It is such a shame that the Government have done so much in the Bill to counteract the ever-increasing problems of rural crime, but in this case I believe that there is a real danger that the Government proposals will prove to be a retrograde step. Discouraging local authorities from taking on the responsibility which exists under the 1968 Act will result in the issue being dodged and many more problems developing than are likely to be resolved.
I have to put one question to my noble friend before I can make up my mind on this issue. Can he persuade me and other noble Lords that what the Government propose is better than what exists under the 1968 Act?
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I have been invited by local authorities in Wiltshire to support the amend-ments. I have also been invited to do so by the National Farmers' Union and Save the Children.
Many of the points that I would have raised have already been mentioned and I do not propose to go over ground that was covered either in the Committee stage or earlier this afternoon.
Even if I had not been invited to speak this afternoon I would have done so on my own account, having lived in Wiltshire for 35 years and for 10 of those years having been a rural district councillor. Rural district councillors do not exist any longer; they were swept away in the 1974 reorganisation. During my term of office as a councillor, in which capacity I was proud to serve my fellow citizens and communities, I believe that I had a reasonable record of achievement. I did two things which give me pride and pleasure to reflect upon. The first was to have four small bungalows built in our very small village for elderly retired folk.
The other achievement was, during my term as chairman of the council, to encourage the council to establish what was the first permanent gypsy site in Wiltshire. It was in South Wiltshire and it was established in 1972. We established the site because Dorset—which has always appeared to be a yard or too faster over the ground than Wiltshire—had become a designated authority and was pushing its unwanted travelling folk across the boundary into South Wiltshire. It was clear that we had to do something. We set to and established a gypsy site.
Therefore I have some experience of what happens at the sharp end. We had no trouble involving shotguns or chain saws. I am told by the chief officer of the county council, who now has responsibility for these matters, that in all the years during which permanent sites have been established in Wiltshire—and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury that there are now 158 pitches in Wiltshire—there has been no trouble.
To go back to 1972 for a moment, one might have thought that establishing a site in an area would prove unpopular with the local community. So it proved. However, we went through the usual civilised process of discussion, consultation, negotiation, persuasion, coun-ter persuasion and so forth. After some months everyone was won over—some more reluctantly than others. That
1558
site has now been established for more than 20 years. Others have followed. There are now 29 sites, some private and some operated by the local authority.
I mentioned that because it has been put forward by the Government that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 has not worked. I have had little responsibility for, and do not take credit for, the fact but Wiltshire is a shining example of how it has worked. I ask myself, if it can work in Wiltshire why on earth can it not be made to work elsewhere?
An Act of Parliament, especially one which lays duties on authorities to do certain things, is an inanimate piece of paper with words written on it. It needs to have life breathed into it. In this case it was for the local authorities to breathe life into the Caravan Sites Act 1968 for which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was responsible. That requires political will at the local authority level.
I do not know why some councils have failed to establish the gypsy sites that were required of them under that legislation. It has been suggested that they have flouted the will of Parliament. They probably have. The 1968 Act lays a duty on local authorities. Some authorities have responded to the will of Parliament and some have not. Wiltshire has done so, and all credit to it.
What of the future? If Clause 75 is approved—and I hope that it will not and that the amendments are accepted—what will happen in those areas where permanent and transit gypsy sites have been established? Will they become overcrowded? Will floods of travelling people use those sites because they have nowhere else to go? Apparently the county of Avon has not done very well in this respect. Wiltshire is next door to Avon, and I hope that travelling people will not flood over the boundary into Wiltshire.
The financial implications have been mentioned. A total of £87 million over 15 years for the whole of England and Wales does not seem a great amount of money. I do not see great savings resulting from the operation of Clause 75.
What am I to tell the people in Wiltshire? They have done everything that Parliament wanted them to do. They are now to be disregarded. The community charge payers will be told that their money has not been well spent. All those authorities which have not done what Parliament wanted them to do will be give the green flag and told that they may forget about it. I find that obnoxious. I support the amendments.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Peel said, this is a sensitive and difficult area. I do not think that anyone who has had cause to approach the subject could fail to realise that there is nothing which is not sensitive or difficult. The problem affects people's lives and livelihoods. It also affects people on whose land or in whose vicinity gypsies present themselves. Therefore, there is a difficulty between the two sides of the problem. Nobody pretends that it is an easy problem to solve. I would not want your Lordships to think that

1559
either I or Her Majesty's Government are taking a tough-nosed view and are being inconsiderate. We are trying to deal with a problem.
On the one hand, there is the problem of gypsies who wish to follow a certain form of nomadic life style. They wish, and are entitled, to have their children educated and to have access to doctors and so forth. On the other hand, there are the conditions of distress and despoliation of the countryside, unauthorised camping and sometimes trespass, and all that that carries with it. It is not easy to strike a balance.
We have dealt with the principle behind the amendment all afternoon. My noble friend's amend-ment suggests that we put off the issue for another five years in order to allow local authorities to take such action as they need and then see what the situation is at the end of that time. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that it is not wrong to put off the matter. However, it is five years. That is one third of the time during which the Caravan Sites Act 1968 has been in operation. The provision of the 100 per cent. grant was introduced later. The provisions were originally to operate for five years. They were extended and have operated for 15 years. Now my noble friend Lord Stanley suggests that we retain the provision for another five years—the same length of time as it was originally intended the grant should last.
As I explained earlier, the system was put in place when fewer than 10 per cent. of gypsies in England and Wales had lawful accommodation. The position is very different: now. Some 70 per cent. of gypsy caravans are now on authorised council or private sites; and on top of that figure, 10 per cent. are on tolerated sites.
The 100 per cent. grant was introduced in 1978. It was made available for a five-year period only. It was intended to stimulate local authority site provision. My noble friend now says, "Let's have it for yet another five years", even though the period has been extended to 15 years.
The system has not enabled local authorities to keep up with the growth of demand for such sites and consequently unauthorised camping by gypsies has remained at broadly the same levels throughout the past 13 years. The reason is that the number of those who wish to become nomads has increased. As I explained previously, that is because the number of caravans has increased by 40 per cent. since 1981, from 9,800 to 13,700. I do not wish to keep harping back, but I must do so because we are discussing the same argument. When that number of people decide to take on that lifestyle, I do not believe that it is reasonable to say that the local authorities should have to provide the sites and that the taxpayer should have to pay for them. If the number of gypsies increases, that is their wish; no one has to take on that lifestyle.
The argument is enticing; I do not deny that. My noble friend Lord Stanley was good enough to see me and seek to entice me. He very nearly did so, but he did not succeed. The argument is, "Let's have another shot. Let's keep the grant going for another five years. Let's put the issue off for a while. Let's have a bit of a breathing space". It is tempting to believe that with just a few more years of grant being available to them, local
1560
authorities will be encouraged to step up their site provision. I doubt whether that will be the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, at the end of the grant regime there has been an upsurge in last-minute applications for grant from local authorities. That was only to be expected. Not all of those are viable proposals. Some are for sites which have been plucked out of the air with no real assessment of the planning or other difficulties to which they might give rise. Others are for minor refurbishment which more properly belongs within a normal maintenance programme. I do not believe that that upsurge is an indication of a desire within local authorities generally to continue with large scale public site provision.
I ask those noble Lords who are in favour of the provision where they expect we shall be in terms of local authority site provision in July 1999. Will this provision be the solution to the problem? I very much doubt it. I believe that we are likely to be in a similar position to now.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the question is not where we shall be in July 1999 but whether, as a result of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, we shall be nearer to a solution to the problem than we would be if the amendment were rejected.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an argument for continuing a grant for ever. That is what happened when the period of the grant was increased from five to 15 years. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, answered the problem when he said that it will not be until the year 2015 or 2020 that everyone is on an authorised site. That is because if conditions continue as they have done in the past there will be yet more itinerant people, yet more local authorities will be expected to make more provision, and yet more taxpayers' money will be expected to pay for that provision.
I do not believe that imposing a statutory timetable for the repeals will make the task of local authorities to find suitable locations for sites any easier. I do not think that such a provision is likely to have an effect on the natural growth of the gypsy population or on the desire of those young gypsy couples to have their own caravans and pitches.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to some matters of great importance. My noble friend Lord Brentford referred to children and pregnant mothers. Before a local authority were to evict a gypsy it will need to consider, among other matters, what duties it and other local authorities will owe to the family to be evicted. The children and pregnant mothers will be two of those considerations.
My noble friends were both concerned about the proposed circular. That will remind local authorities of their obligations under the Children Act 1989. Those obligations are clear enough. Local authorities will be expected to liaise about their evictions. But my noble friend Lady Faithfull was anxious about travellers' access to education facilities. Of course, the continuity of access to education for travellers' children is a problem. We already commit very considerable resources towards resolving those difficulties.

1561
Allowance is made in the funds allocated to education authorities for the basic needs of travellers' children. There are two separate duties. The first is the duty of the local education authority to ensure that all children attend school or are otherwise suitably educated, and it has to make sufficient places available to them. The second is the duty of parents to ensure that children between the ages of five and 16 attend school regularly or are suitably educated otherwise than at school.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was anxious about health facilities. By the very nature of their travelling lifestyle it is difficult to maintain continuity of health care for travellers. However, regional health authorities are required to take account of the travellers' needs when they formulate their plans. The National Health Service Executive issued guidance in September last year which makes it perfectly clear that where a patient cannot give an address the district health authority in which the unit providing the treatment is located should accept the responsibility. There are well-established arrangements for general practitioners either to provide emergency treatment to unregistered people or to treat people as temporary residents for a period of up to three months.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, recognised and applauded the very considerable efforts of local authorities which have provided sites. I agree with him. Some have made a great deal of effort and expended a great deal of trouble; and I applaud them too. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, said that the arrangements were going to be cast on one side. That is not so. Our proposals do not reward authorities which have not provided adequate sites for gypsies. The simple fact is that the new powers for local authorities are necessary to enable them to control unauthorised camping in their areas. It is the control of unauthorised camping which underlies the subject. The grant has continued for 15 years. We believe, for the reasons that I have given, that it is time for it to come to an end. Of course, whenever a grant comes to an end 101 reasons are put forward on why it should continue; and everyone would like it if it were to continue. But the grant has not solved the problem. Even the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, admitted that the problem would not be solved until the year 2015 or 2020.
While I understand the reasons for my noble friend Lord Stanley putting forward his amendment, I hope that he will not press it because I do not think that that would be right under the circumstances. A lot of local authority provision has been made. Much private provision has been made by the gypsies themselves. It is right that when more people wish to take on such a lifestyle they should be responsible for making that provision. If my noble friend were to press the amendment, I hope that your Lordships will reject it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I might as well put your Lordships out of your agony and say that I intend to press the amendment, so noble Lords had better start to make up their minds which way they wish to go.
1562
I thank all noble Lords for their support. Perhaps I may deal quickly with the Court of Appeal case. In that case it is quite clear that New Age travellers—hippies, call them what you will—were not included. In particular, Lord Chief Justice Leggatt referred to requiring sites from the local authority. That was not my main argument however. My main argument was contained in the seven points which I made in my opening speech and I have no intention of repeating them now; it would only bore your Lordships.
We are all agreed—particularly my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who has said it a hundred times—that the problem is providing enough sites for the gypsies. We just do not have enough. I believe that my amendment would give the local authority and the private sector time to find the sites. My noble friend Lord Brentford brought up the question of the planning problem and that it takes two years even to get the sites into the structure plan. Then the gypsies have to try to apply for them, so it will take a little time. That is what I ask your Lordships to give.
I fully accept that it is a difficult problem. It goes without saying that my interest is on the farming and rural side, as I am agonised and infuriated by the unauthorised sites. However, the amendments are also supported by those on the social side of the problem and, as your Lordships know, they are strongly supported by Save the Children, so we are at one over the problem.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers chided me, as I thought he would, for asking for a delay. I am more than used to being chided and teased; I have been all my life and I shall continue to be so. Perhaps my noble friend did not realise and appreciate another recent court decision within the past few months in which a farmer was awarded substantial damages against Avon County Council for not providing sites. If we give local authorities a delay, they will start paying attention. Maybe the farming community should have taken the case up before, but once one case is taken up and has been judged—I hope I am allowed to quote the damages, I believe that they were over £70,000—local authorities might just start thinking again about their duty. That is why I wish to have a delay.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers again said that the Act has been in force since 1968, so why do we have to wait another five years to do anything? I follow the words of the noble Lord, Lord Congleton: there needs to be a political will. There may have been the political will in the recent court case against Avon County Council, but frankly I cannot believe that a single noble Lord here, when faced with a difficult decision—and this is difficult—will not put it off. I usually put the problem in the pending tray and hope that when, after a few months, it has disappeared under a heap of paper, I shall not have to sort it out.
Because of the court case and all the planning problems, the eleventh hour has come and I ask that we should give local authorities a little longer to solve the problem. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel that the Government have done much in the Bill to try to prevent rural crime. I am truly grateful for that and I am sorry that in this case they cannot follow the argument that

1563
this legislation could well cause more rural crime as we move gypsies from one unauthorised farm site to another unauthorised farm site. Indeed, it might well pit farmer against farmer.
This is a minor correction to the Bill. I suggest that it is the kind of minor correction that is in keeping with your Lordships' revising role. I hope that it is widely supported by noble Lords; it is certainly widely supported outside. I therefore very much hope that noble Lords will support it in the Lobby. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
6.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 124A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hertford, M.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hollick, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Attlee, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Howell, L.

Barnett, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hughes, L.

Beloff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jay, L.

Bottomley, L.

Jeger, B.

Brentford, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bridges, L.

Judd, L.

Brightman, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lawrence, L.

Burton, L.

Listowel, E.

Cadman, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Lucas, L.

Carter, L.

Lytton, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Congleton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Craigavon, V.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Monson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Ennals, L.

Mulley, L.

Ezra, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faithfull, B.

Newall, L.

Falkland, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gallacher, L.

Peel, E.

Geraint, L.

Peston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Gladwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rea, L.

Greenway, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gregson, L.

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Rix, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Haskel, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

1564

Seear, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Serota, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stallard, L.

Wharton, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller]

White, B.

Stedman, B.

Wigoder, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Strange, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tenby, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thurlow, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L

Balfour, E.

Leigh, L.

Barber, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Borthwick, L.

Chancellor.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moran, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Courtown, E.

Orkney, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cranborne, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Davidson, V.

Renton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renwick, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Elton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Erne, E.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Stewartby, L.

Finsberg, L.

Stockton, E.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

[Teller.]

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goschen, V.

Swinfen, L.

Gridley, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hastings, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hayter, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hemphill, L.

Ullswater, V.[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Vivian, L.

Holderness, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Westbury, L.

Hood, V.

Wynford, L.

Howe, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 124B:
Before Clause 79, insert the following new clause:
Definition of obscenity
For section 1 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, there shall be substituted—
"Definition of obscenity.
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, any publication, whether written, printed, audible or visual, shall be deemed to be obscene if in the opinion of a jury it—

(a)

(i) contains any material of a sexual nature which is grossly indecent or degrading, or

(ii) portrays sadomasochism or degrading cruelty, or

(iii) portrays bestiality or nauseating obscenity; and

(b)is so depicted or presented that it could encourage similar acts, provided that it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph in any prosecution arising from bestiality or nauseating obscenity.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) (a) above, where it is apparent that the publication is intended for or sold to children and young persons under the age of 18 years, it shall be deemed to be obscene if it contains any material of the nature set out in subsection (1) above without the necessity of satisfying the requirements of paragraph (b)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this amendment is much the same as that of the amendment moved by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, at Committee stage. The object of this amendment is, to quote the noble Lady, to put some teeth into the 1959 Act.
Unlike the noble Lady, while I welcome the amendments that are shortly to follow this one on videos and other matters, I regret that that amendment does not deal with books, pictures, photographs, plays, broadcasting and so on. My amendment is an attempt to try to fill that gap.
It has certainly been my experience that the present laws do not work. I think that that is the experience of most people. All sorts of excuses are made as to why that is so, but nobody seems to be too insistent on changing them. Ordinary people to whom I speak, and to whom I have spoken over the years for a long time, just do not understand why something cannot be done to improve what to them is a serious situation.
It is a widely accepted fact that since 1960 standards and moral values have declined quite dramatically in our country. They have declined since the 1959 Act came into force and they continue to do so. I shall repeat just one or two of the statistics that were used. For example, in 1961 there were 51,000 illegitimate births in this country. By 1991 the number had risen to 235,000. In 1961 there were 27,000 divorces; in 1991 there were 167,000 divorces, and that figure is still rising quite rapidly. Drug offences, rape, burglary, street crime, car crime and crimes of violence have all increased. It is a well-known fact that in some inner-city areas those crimes seem to be almost out of control. In such areas we have come to accept such statements as: "You can expect to be burgled; you can expect to be mugged". A lot of people just do not accept that, and they want to know why they have to accept it. They want to know, if something can be done about it, why it is not being done. That is a very common, ordinary and legitimate question.
I firmly believe—many people may not agree with me; certainly not Members of this House—that much of the problem arises from the permissiveness which began in the 1960s, when the Christian and moral values on which our society was, and is, built, the values on which it was founded, began to be eroded. We saw the breakdown of respect between men and women, parents and children, children and teachers and between a huge chunk of the population and the police force. We saw a lessening of respect for the elderly and infirm and a
1566
general lack of respect for people and their property. Something has to be done. I read the debate that took place (because I could not be here at the time) and I believe that this amendment, with the couple of alterations that we have made to it since the Committee stage, ought to meet the objections that were raised, certainly those raised by the government Minister who replied to the debate.
It seems that the original flaw in the 1959 Obscene Publications Act may lie in the requirement for a prosecuting counsel to prove to a jury that any specific material held to be obscene has a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of persons likely to read, hear or see the matter. I fully accept that it is very difficult to prove a tendency. It is equally difficult for a jury to decide on a guilty verdict in such matters given that the wording is so vague and subjective and is open to such a variety of interpretations.
Over the years, a long succession of lawyers, judges and DPPs have criticised the wording of the Act, using such terms as "unworkable", "unenforceable", "unten-able" and "illogical", and have described it as providing a formula that cannot be applied. They have all said so. This amendment is an attempt to change that situation. I accept that it was the intention of Parliament in passing the 1959 Act to strengthen the law against pornography without penalising works of genuine artistic merit. In practice, the law has been rendered almost powerless against pornography.
The point is clearly demonstrated if we compare the modest volume of pornography that was offered for sale prior to the 1959 Act with today's huge pornographic industry. Nobody can gainsay that there is now a huge industry in pornography and that it is increasing rapidly. I need make no more speeches about how much the situation has deteriorated since the introduction of that Act and the way in which it was worded.
The substance of the material that is published has undergone substantial change over that same period. For example, the risqué girlie magazine of those days bears no comparison with today's steadily expanding trade in publications that specialise in sexual perversions of nearly every imaginable kind, including sadomasoch-ism. As long ago as 1972 the then Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, criticised the failure of the Obscene Publications Act. He said that experience has shown that much material which even at first sight would appear to be pornographic in the extreme has escaped the reach of the law. The noble and learned Lord argued that the law had misfired because of the, wording of the statute and the way in which the courts had chosen to apply it. Each failed prosecution seemed to encourage the pornographers to push back the bounds of acceptability even further. It also made it extremely unlikely that the DPP would enable subsequent prosecution cases to be brought to trial owing to the extreme unlikelihood of a conviction being obtained under the 1959 statute. The decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of the publishers of the Marquis de Sade's book Juliette to the effect that:
"there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction as required by the code of prosecutors"
clearly shows the need for a new code. That book contains material which is so horrifying that the printers who produce the parliamentary House magazine refused to typeset it. The book describes and advocates violence of the most perverted kind. If I were to try to illustrate it, Hansard would probably be banned under my amendment. It would certainly be out of order. Yet Juliette can be bought by teenagers from any bookshop. After the recent horrific attacks on women and children, an urgent government review of Britain's obscenity laws would clearly have public support.
From correspondence and calls that I received following recent discussions and Questions in your Lordships' House on the Education Bill, the sex education provisions of that Bill and some of the material being published at that time, I know the strength of support to be found outside as well as inside this House for something to be done. The argument of those who oppose any tightening of the present laws, that there is no proof of a link between pornography, violence and sexual crime, is no longer credible. There is an argument that tightening of the law is on the way to censorship. That may be. But maybe there is a need for an element of censorship. Even with complete freedom, there must be some limits and some kind of code provided. There have to be some moral values and some base. I believe that is where we went wrong when the Christian values in which most of us were brought up began to be eroded.
Let me give an example of what is happening. It arose from a Question that I asked in March concerning two publications: A Sex Guide and Your Pocket Guide to Sex. Arising from my Question and the publicity it received, there were some protests and statements made by Ministers in the other place. Pressure was put on the publishers and others to withdraw the publications. I have now received the copy of a cover of a new Penguin publication in the same vein, one corner of which states: "The book the Government tried to ban". Are people so far gone that they do not take any notice at all of this place or of what we are trying to do and are cashing in on the Government trying to ban the book so that they can sell more copies of that awful publication? Most of us would reject such publications if our children were to say, "This is what I am reading now; I bought it in Smith's".
We must do something. In the meantime, the pornographers and that industry is clearly using the present Obscene Publications Act as an umbrella under which they feel free to expand their markets without let or hindrance. My amendment, worded as it is, meets the objections of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, who said:
"It seems to the Government that, in so far as it can be, the law has to be in keeping with the views of ordinary men and women. That is how it is expressed by juries".—[Official Report, 7/6/94; col. 1216]
He is quite right. He does not agree with that when it comes to his final words, but he is quite right. The law has to be in keeping with the views of ordinary men and women. I defy noble Lords to find any ordinary men or women who do not agree that there is need for a change of the nature that I suggest tonight. There has to be a
1568
change. The whole thing has to be brought back into some kind of reasonableness. My amendment is one way of doing it.
The noble and learned Lord concluded that:
"the Government believe that the 1959 Act, as it stands, contains a formulation which has not so far been bettered, and we do not believe that this amendment would improve upon it".—[Official Report, 7/6/94; col. 1217]
That may have been true. There were a couple of words which made the amendment difficult and circuitous. We have removed those words. I now submit that the amendment as shown on the Marshalled List today meets those criticisms. I hope that the House will be able to accept the new amendment. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that every one of your Lordships sympathises with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in his description of the general decline of morals—especially, alas! among the young—to which he referred. Let there be no doubt about that. That is the motive for his amendment. However, with deep respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure that it is a solution to the very much broader social problem which he mentioned.
I turn to the terms of the amendment. In doing so, I ought to declare that when the Obscene Publications Bill (which was a Private Member's Bill, introduced by Mr. Roy Jenkins, now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead) came before the other place, I, as a junior Minister at the Home Office, had to advise the other place upon it. That was 35 years ago. I hope that noble Lords will broadly agree that the Act has stood the test of time fairly well. It has the very great: advantage of simplicity.
Its terms are truly simple. The noble Lord quoted the whole of the subsection in question. I shall quote only part of it:
"tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it".
So far as I know—and others may know better—in practice that has not given rise to difficulties in the courts. Certainly it is not the only provision in the Act. Toward the end of the Act there is a section which deals with the defence of the public good. I should have thought that it would be better to stick to that provision in Section 1(1) of the 1959 Act instead of trying to replace it in the way suggested by the noble Lord, which is nothing like so simple and which will give rise to difficulties of definition—definition of terms which the jury may not easily understand. Not every juror will know the meaning of the word "sado-masochism". New paragraph (1) (b) of the amendment is another way of expressing the tendency to deprave and corrupt.
It is right that we should always be trying to improve the law. But when trying to improve a law which has stood the test of time for so many years, we must be quite sure of what we are doing. Quite frankly, I prefer the simplicity of Section 1 of the 1959 Act to the complexity of the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is necessary to say from this Dispatch Box—or perhaps at a discreet distance from it—that this is a matter on

1569
which my noble friends have a free vote. There is no issue of party policy or a Whip on the matter. At the same time, for myself I say that I am as strongly opposed to this amendment as I was to the previous one.
I was enormously impressed by the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in response to the amendment moved by my noble friend on the last occasion. He pointed out, as my noble friend reminded the House, that definitions of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 have never in practice been bettered. He pointed out the fallacies of trying to define obscenity not by the purpose of the obscenity but by what is depicted. If one does that, one becomes involved in an impossible tangle of asking whether a news item or a piece of classical art or literature is to be treated in the same way as something designed for pornographic purposes. I am sure that no amendment along the lines suggested by my noble friend could ever replace the definition contained in Section 1. Any amendment which attempts to remove Section 1 of the 1959 Act is doomed to failure.
Paradoxically, my noble friend made the situation worse. Because he limited the scope of the amendment to certain things—sadomasochism, bestiality and so forth—he restricted the definition of obscenity more than he wished. He ruled out some of the provisions which the 1959 Act in its present formulation could deal with but which could not be dealt with by an amendment of the sort proposed. I beg my noble friend, person to person, not to press the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps I can point out another omission in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which may be considered to be of importance. In Section 79, which follows the amendment, provision is made for computer-generated images which may be a growing and even more harmful influence on the lives of young people. Much has been said and written on the subject in relation to the ease of access to pornography generated on disck, some of which is alleged to be freely available in schools, and also the more worrying phenomenon of pornography distributed over the Internet, which is freely available to anybody with a computer and modem. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the amendment he can say whether or not the Government have had any thoughts on the matter.
Whatever definition one has of obscenity, it implies that there must be some mechanism of control. Once a publication is regarded as obscene it can be seized in the bookshops, if it is a book. If it is a disk, equally the authorities can go to the people selling the disks, apprehend them and confiscate the goods. But I am not sure how we can cope with pornography that is available over electronic media; nor can I think of a remedy for pornography distributed over satellite television. There is a certain amount of that, though I am happy to say that it is not freely available in this country.
Rather than concentrate on the old forms of pornography such as pictures, magazines and text, we must consider the new facilities which the electronic media have made available to pornographers to distribute their work and how we can deal with it. At the
1570
same time, we must be careful not to catch the innocent sellers of images which may be caught, not necessarily within this definition but in some other definition. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right to say that we should consider the context in which the images are contained. I received representations from people publishing naturist magazines to say that they are afraid that some of the provisions of Clause 79 may render them liable to prosecution. An image of a naked child in a magazine addressed to the naturist community is not obscene; it is part of the normal way of life of naturists. Nobody suggests that there are any sexual connotations to such images and we would not want a definition of obscenity which was so wide as to catch that kind of image, or indeed the artistic images which have no overtones of the sort mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
This is perhaps not the place in which to enter into a lengthy discussion on the subject. But the Government must address their mind as to what we should do about pornography distributed through computer media, particularly the ready availability of disks to schoolchildren and the much more knotty problem of how we deal with pornography distributed over the Internet and over satellite television. I do not believe that we have the means to deal with it and I shall be glad to hear reassurances from the Minister.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as I had something to do with the 1959 Act as a Home Office Minister and meddled with its interpretation in two cases in your Lordships' House—Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions where I appeared as a law officer and then in Knuller as a participant in the decision—I should like to offer humbly a few observations.
First, there is no doubt that the case of Knuller gave a great relaxation to the law. Secondly, it is not realistic to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, that any lapse in public standards of morality have anything to do with the 1959 Act. I find it quite impossible to trace any relationship. Thirdly, the 1959 Act contains two defects, one of which has been overcome. For a long time it was misused. A famous leading counsel appeared in case after case supported by an expert witness and he took the issue posed by the 1959 Act in quite the wrong way.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, Section 1 gives the test for pornography as a tendency "to deprave or corrupt". Section 4 introduces the defence of public good. What it says, and I think is now understood, is that a work, notwithstanding that it may be obscene, nevertheless on the whole may conduce to the public good by reason of, say, its artistic or literary merit. It is a difficult balancing act to be performed by a jury but juries can perform it, weighing the evil of the obscenity against the correlated good of the artistic or scientific merit. Where it went wrong for a long time was that it was successfully argued in case after case that the obscenity was itself of value; that people benefited by contemplating the obscenity. An expert witness would be asked, "Do not your patients masturbate as a result?" He would say cheerfully, "Yes, they do, and much to their relief. As a result, the issue that was really posed

1571
by the Act was misunderstood in case after case. That has been rectified by a decision in your Lordships' House. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the Act now works reasonably well, as was intended.
The second defect is perhaps less important. The verdict of the jury masks entirely the question whether it thought the article obscene or whether the obscenity was outweighed by the artistic, scientific or other good. As a result we know very little about the way the Act has worked in individual cases. If there is an amendment to the Act I would much prefer to see it clarified that separate verdicts are brought in on the question of obscenity and any countervailing public good. Having said that, much as I admire the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I cannot agree that the new proposed clause would improve the matter, even in the way that he seeks.
I make one final suggestion: the whole subject was reviewed about 10 years ago by a committee chaired by Professor Williams. Unfortunately, the general effect of its report was to trivialise the whole issue. The report found no favour when it was debated in your Lordships' House; it was in fact dropped. I believe, however, that it contained one valuable suggestion. That was to get away from the test of to deprave and corrupt and to ask instead: does this article outrage public decency? I would very much like to see further inquiry and exploration on those lines. In the meantime I cannot, on any approach, support the amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I support the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord. Stallard; it is exactly the same as the intention behind my amendment at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the Obscene Publications Act had the merit of simplicity. It is all very well an Act having the merit of simplicity. But if it is not effective that merit is neither here nor there. I contend that the Obscene Publications Act is not effective.
I have to confess that I would like to see some form of censorship brought back. I know that at present censorship is a dirty word. But we have censorship through the Race Relations Act and in connection with equal opportunities. If advertising for an employee we may not specify whether that employee is to be male or female. What is that except a form of censorship? The only difference between the 1950s and nowadays is what is censored is different.
No one is quicker than myself in agreeing that this amendment, or something like it, is not the whole answer to the question. I believe, however, that it would go a little way towards helping it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is much concerned about this matter and I respect him for standing up for the maintenance of standards and moral standards which seem to be so much under attack nowadays.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is not suggesting that moral standards have been under attack in this House this evening, is he?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, certainly not. I do not know where on earth the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gets that
1572
idea. I had better start again if the noble Lord is going to be so finicky as to try to trap. I was merely commenting and commending the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in general for standing up for certain standards which, on the whole, seem to be under attack outside this House.
I want to make it perfectly clear to start with that the Government have no doctrinaire attachment to the tendency to deprave and corrupt test of obscenity which is currently part of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. As we have often said, if anyone could devise a new test which seemed to us to be better than the existing one, we would be content in principle that the law should be changed, if, of course, Parliament also wished it. But while the Government certainly share the noble Lord's concerns, I could not, as he and other noble Lords realise, advise noble Lords to accept the amendment.
The Obscene Publications Act 1959 makes it an offence to publish, or possess for publication for gain, any article which, taken as a whole, has a tendency to deprave and corrupt those likely to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it where an "article" —I mean this in the legal sense and not the journalistic sense—is made up of distinct elements, for example, separate features in a magazine. The article may be found obscene if any one of those elements, taken as a whole, has a tendency to deprave or corrupt. Section 4 of the Act provides that no offence is committed if the defendant can prove that publication of the article concerned is justified as being for the public good on the grounds that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or other objects of general concern.
I suppose that the main criticism of the current "deprave and corrupt" test, is that it is imprecise, archaic and difficult for jurors to understand, with the consequence that too few prosecutions for obscenity are brought, and too few of those succeed. But, the statistics do not altogether bear this out. In 1993, there were 213 prosecutions and 172 convictions for obscenity offences under the 1959 Act. Figures for seizure and forfeiture under Section 3 of the Act are not collected centrally but from inquiries which have been made of the Metropolitan Police we understand that in 1993 they alone seized 147,716 obscene items which is not a bad trawl.
As for imprecision and uncertainty, one of the advantages of the current test is its adaptability. It is not confined to precise subjects, and certainly not to pornography. It can catch any material which has a tendency to deprave and corrupt, whether it is concerned with drug taking, sexual perversions, violence, crime, or instructions for bomb-making.
At the beginning of this year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary looked carefully at the various proposals which have been made for a new test of obscenity over the years, as well as at a test suggested by Mrs. Ann Winterton MP. These tests fall into two main camps; those which provide a list of subjects which may not be depicted, and those which prohibit depictions which are grossly offensive. The noble Lord's amendment, I think, falls somewhere between the two.

1573
Both of these approaches have significant disadvan-tages however. A list approach is inflexible and essentially arbitrary; inevitably some things are missed out, while other things may be inadvertently included under a broad general heading which we would wish to exclude on more careful thought. A gross offensiveness test is at least flexible, but it seems wrong in principle to ban something just because some people, or even most people, may be offended by it. Many things may be offensive to many people, but this is not, in itself, a reason to ban them. The current deprave and corrupt test concentrates on the harm which an article may do to those who are exposed to it, and this seems to be right in principle.
When my right honourable friend considered the alternatives to the current test, he asked himself, as I think your Lordships should do now, what difference they would make in practice. It is impossible to predict which articles, or even which broad categories of article currently escape the test of obscenity but would be caught by the test of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which is, I am bound to say, vague and uncertain, and to some extent a little confusing. The proposed amendment contains a variety of different criteria for determining whether an article is obscene. These are to be applied in different combinations according to the circumstances of each case. The definition of obscenity would be almost circular, as one of the criteria as to whether an article is obscene depends on whether it portrays "nauseating obscenity". So what is obscenity? It is something that is obscene. What is obscene? It is something which portrays "nauseating obscenity"—and so we go round and round. The criteria also contain elements such as "degrading violence", "nauseating obscenity", "lewd" material, all of which are undefined, and all far from providing a more certain and objective test than the current test of obscenity.
In general, articles would be found obscene under the proposed test only if they "could encourage similar acts" or conduct. In fact, this is probably more restrictive than is the current requirement that they should have a tendency to deprave and corrupt. This does not necessarily imply any effect on actual conduct but it may simply refer to moral degeneracy, or to the continuance of an already corrupt manner of life.
As I have said, one of the virtues of the current test of obscenity is that it can apply to any type of material which has a tendency to deprave and corrupt, and it is not confined to pornography. The noble Lord's amendment would cover only sexual material, violent material, and material concerned with controlled drugs. It would not, for example, cover material which glamorises a life of crime, or instructs people in how to make bombs, both of which can be covered under the present definition.
If the objection to the current test is that it is too difficult for juries, I am bound to say that I do not think that jurors would find the noble Lord's proposed new test much easier to apply—rather the contrary in fact. But I wonder whether juries do find the existing test difficult.
1574
There has undoubtedly been a change in standards of public acceptability over the years. I think that many of your Lordships would agree also that the change has been for the worse. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, certainly would do so. However, it is difficult to attribute this change to any particular deficiency in the law, which has remained the same since 1959, and which is indeed almost identical to the common law of a century ago. I think the truth is that social mores have changed as a whole, and people are simply not as shocked, or shockable, as they once were. This may be a pity and I, for one, think that it is highly regrettable, but I doubt whether any amendment to the test of obscenity would reverse this process.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the damage which computer material and disks can do. He will note that Amendment No. 126A in the name of my noble friend Lord Gisborough deals with disks. The Bill strengthens our controls on obscenity, and particularly on computer pornography, by making it clear that transmissions between computers are covered by the Obscene Publications Act; by extending the law to cover child pornography which is manufactured by computer; by making it an imprisonable offence merely to possess child pornography; by increasing the penalties for obscenity offences in Scotland and by making obscenity and child pornography offences in England and Wales serious arrestable offences. The Bill strengthens those areas considerably.
However, I should not like to be discouraging to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The Government take very seriously the threat that is posed by the worst kinds of obscene material. That is why we have included the existing provisions of Part VII. It is vital that the law should keep pace with advances in modern technology, such as computer pornography, and especially computerised child pornography. As I have said, the Bill also makes obscenity offences arrestable, and it will give the police increased powers to obtain evidence against pornographers. It provides a possible prison sentence for those found in possession of child pornography, and it brings the penalties for obscenity offences in Scotland into line with those in England and Wales. I do not think that anyone can justly accuse the Government of taking no action on this matter.
Although I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I am bound to tell him that we do not believe that this amendment would improve the law. Indeed, if it were adopted there is a strong risk that the law might actually be left in a worse position—by being left in an ambiguous and confused state which would inevitably create an area of opportunity for the pornographers to exploit to their advantage.
7 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I have listened carefully to all those who have participated in the debate. I must confess that this is what I expected. I did not expect that my amendment would receive the acclaim of your Lordships' House. However, I am a bit disappointed that the Government were not more positive. I had thought that this Government would at least appear to be more positive to any alternative provisions to try to stop

1575
the flood of pornography which concerns us all. In view of that, I should be happy if the Minister were to say to me that the Government will come forward with a better amendment to do the job that I have sought to do. If the noble Earl could say that, it would help everybody. However, from listening to him, it seems that the Government are simply sitting back and saying that this has been the law for 35 years. It seems that until some change is forced upon them by public opinion, nothing will happen. I hope that the public will listen to small debates like this because even if people think that I am wrong—they may think that the Government are wrong —at least the debate will have started.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the 1959 Act is simple. That is supposed to be its merit. However, I have read umpteen opinions from a succession of lawyers, judges, law lords and directors of public prosecution. All have criticised the wording of the 1959 Act, using words such as unworkable, unenforceable, untenable, illogical and saying that it provides a formula that cannot be applied. Therefore, it does not seem to me that the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the legal profession think that the provisions are simplistic. In fact, I think that the opposite is the case. The Act is too complicated for even those lawyers to be able to make sense of it. The Act needs changing.
If we let this opportunity slide by, nothing will be changed. That is obvious from hearing the contributions from the other side and the Minister's remarks. I am sad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—I have the utmost respect and admiration for everything else that he does—is wrong because he does not agree with me on this. I am sad about that, but I do not believe that the Act is working.
If the Act were working, there would be much more success than that to which the Minister was able to point. The statistics that he gave show minimal effort given the size of the problem. We are talking about a problem running into hundreds of thousands of cases, not a paltry few hundred offences here and there. Pornography is a big industry and the 1959 Act is obviously not good enough, not strong enough —and too complicated—to be able to deal with it. Indeed, it is so complicated that even lawyers and DPPs cannot understand it.
Therefore, something has to be done and, in the absence of anything else, I suggest that my amendment would at least improve the existing position. It might even take the debate a step forward. I seek the views of your Lordships on that.
Division called.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 124B be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say, "Content". On the contrary, "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: The Contents will go to the right by the Throne.
Noble Lords: No.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the amendment is therefore negatived.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Charges for Land Searches) Regulations 1994
7.15 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this short but important measure has been considered by the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place where it received the support of the Opposition spokesman. It has also the support of the local authority associations. It follows wide consultation with, among others, consumer organisations, the CBI, the Law Society, and other representatives of the professions concerned with property transactions.
The regulations are designed to provide a specific power for local authorities in England and Wales to charge for dealing with inquiries made in connection with house purchases and other property transactions. The amount of the charge will be at the authority's discretion; but in setting charges, the authority will be required to have regard to the costs of answering those inquiries. The inquiries in question concern planning, highways and other matters, information about which is important to prospective purchasers.
Local authorities have been dealing with, and charging for, those inquiries for over half a century; but it has recently been drawn to the department's attention that the local authorities in England and Wales have no clear charging power for that purpose. We need to act to rectify that situation. There would be serious consequences for the property market if local authorities were to withdraw that service for lack of any charging power.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced for consultation in March proposals for new statutory arrangements for local authorities' handling of land search and related inquiries. Those proposals include powers to enable local authorities to deal with and charge for a wide range of inquiries. The details of the scheme are currently being worked out, taking account of responses to the consultation; but a new statutory scheme, with new powers, will require primary legislation and must therefore await a suitable legislative opportunity. We can however act in the interim to provide a clear charging power for the inquiries with which local authorities are currently empowered to deal. We can do that by means of the regulations which are to be made under Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 4th May be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount St. Davids.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the regulations. We from the Opposition welcome it. I have only two or three questions to ask the noble Viscount about the order. In the first place, I refer to Regulation 2, (which relates to "answering enquiries". Are we to assume that the status of inquiries is established? There may be a telephone call; there may be a letter. What is an inquiry? What is formally an inquiry? Perhaps the noble Viscount can assure me on that.
Secondly, on Regulation 2(1) (a) relating to "the authority's functions", I take it that the regulation relates only to the functions of authorities in England and Wales, which are of a planning nature? I hope the noble Viscount will be able to confirm that. Thirdly, in Regulation 2(1) (b), "any interest in land" is the expression used in the regulation. I take it that that has nothing to do with housing; that this is an authority which has land in which it has an interest, and if it wants to sell off, for instance, a council house, and someone makes an inquiry about the sale of a council house, that that is not subject to Regulation 2?
Lastly, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount about Regulation 2(3) which states:
"A charge imposed under this regulation is payable by the person making the enquiry",
If the charge is in respect of a transfer by the authority of any interest in land, and if then the person making the inquiry wins the case, or, as it were, prevails, is that still a charge on the person making the inquiry or are costs in that case borne by the local authority? I do not wish to pick nits, but I believe that those are questions that the noble Viscount may wish to answer.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first question, there is a lengthy local authorities' inquiry form entitled CON. 29, which is published by the Law Society. In the first part, headed standard inquiries, it poses some 16 questions with optional inquiries covering a further 16 questions. Some of those questions have more than one part. It is in the use of CON. 29 to which these regulations mainly apply.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Is he saying that unless someone making the inquiry fulfils CON. 29 it is not an inquiry under the order which the House is considering?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the inquiries about which we are talking fall under the regulations we are considering. It is almost certainly the practice that the inquiries will be made in writing. As regards the noble Lord's second question, the regulations are specifically designed to allow local authorities to charge for answering inquiries made in connection with property transactions. Any proposals to allow charging for inquiries relating to some other purpose would need to be considered separately.
The noble Lord's third question related to the phrase "in land". That includes all property whether it be land
1578
or housing. It relates to property in general. In answering the noble Lord's fourth question, I understand that the charges are made for the inquiry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the Minister finally concludes, perhaps I may clarify one matter. He said that almost always inquiries will be made by reference to CON. 29. What does he mean by "almost always"? Is it always or is it sometimes? We need to know what we are talking about. Either there is an inquiry under a specific procedure which is written, as the Minister pointed out, or there is a telephone inquiry which may take up to three-quarters of an hour of a local authority's time and that may be charged.
While the Minister is obtaining news from elsewhere, perhaps I may deal with a second point. I was interested to hear him say that inquirers on sales of council houses can be charged by the local authority which, a fortiori, owns the house in question. I had not understood that point in the regulations. Is it really the case that if a council wishes to sell a council house and bids are out for the council house, all inquiries, presumably in the correct form, can be charged to any person who makes an inquiry about the house regardless or whether or not he or she concludes a contract to buy the house? If that is the case I should be grateful if the Minister would spell it out in words of one or two syllables because it seems to me to be unfair. If I have a house which I wish to sell I do not charge a prospective buyer the cost of my telephone calls, his telephone calls to me or his applications to me. Nor does my estate agent. I should be grateful if the Minister could assure me on those matters.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, an inquiry does not have to be on CON. 29 but that is the usual practice. It could be received in the form of a letter or any other type of written inquiry. Someone wishing to acquire a property would require the information to be made to them in a written form. I do not believe that one would wish to rely purely on the information received as a result of a telephone call.
The noble Lord asks about charging. The regulations provide for the local authority to make charges at its discretion. They are not mandatory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. I find it odd that a council wishing to sell a council house can charge for an inquiry in writing. I understand that no telephone calls are allowed and that all inquiries must be made in writing. I find it odd that the council can say, "You have asked about this particular house. It is 3 Acacia Avenue and these are the details. You have asked in writing and therefore the charge is made to you". No estate agent in the world would charge for that. And no owner in the world, if he had any sense, would charge for that.
I do not wish to pursue the matter. If the Minister insists that councils will have the right to do that no doubt that is so. I find it odd, however, that in the context of the property market these regulations should pass without clarification of the point I have raised.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord was not right in saying that I said that inquiries will always

1579
be made in writing. I said that it is the practice that they should be written. CON. 29 is a pro forma of the type of questions that will be asked. They cover issues such as road schemes, development plans, the maintenance of roads and notice under planning Acts. I suggest that one would wish to have a written record of that. The regulations do not relate to the local authority's costs incurred in selling a house. They cover the cost of supplying information about planning, highways, the matters I listed and other matters relating to the property.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weights and Measures (Cosmetic Products) Order 1994
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, it may be for the convenience of the House if both Motions on the Order Paper are discussed together.
The draft Weights and Measures (Cosmetic Products) Order would complete the implementation in United Kingdom law of the European Community directive which harmonises the laws of member states on sales of cosmetic products. The principal change to UK law would be to require pre-packed cosmetics such as perfumes and moisturisers in quantities of 5 grammes, or 5 millilitres, or more to bear an indication of quantity. At present, pre-packed cosmetics must generally be quantity marked above 12 grammes, or 12 millilitres.
The other Motion relates to the draft Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order. The present law requires the phasing out from the end of this year of the use of Imperial measures for the sale of the four most popular spirits—gin, rum, vodka and whisky—for consumption on licensed premises. From 1st January 1995 these spirits may be sold only in a quantity of 25 millilitres and multiples. The draft order permits these spirits also to be sold in a quantity of 35 millilitres and multiples thereof. The order would therefore maintain choice for licensees in the quantity of spirits they may offer to the public.
Both draft orders follow consultation by the Department of Trade and Industry with more than 100 organisations representing trade, consumer and enforce-ment interests. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the two Motions. I have no problem with regard to the second order. The problem with regard to the first seems to me that, as I understand the explanatory note, it implements a Council directive. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate to make the order under the European
1580
Communities Act rather than under the Weights and Measures Act, which is not a suitable vehicle for implementing Community directives?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no. The matter is fairly straightforward. The draft order substitutes the definition of cosmetic products contained in the directive—that of perfumery and toilet preparations— set out in the Weights and Measures Act 1985. It also requires retailers to indicate the quantity of sales of non pre-packed cosmetic products such as shampoo refills and bath beads. Thirdly, it exempts from the requirement to indicate weight or volume products sold by number such as lipsticks and products intended for single use such as individual sachets of shampoo. In view of that explanation, the Government believe that it is entirely appropriate for the order to be made in this way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 1994
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, to which I have just spoken.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until quarter past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 until 8.15 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
( "Sexual offences against children outside United Kingdom

.—(1) Any sexual offence committed in any jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom, including the aiding, abetting, counselling or procurement of the commission of such an offence, shall be triable and punishable as if it had been so committed in the United Kingdom if—

(a) the act in question is punishable according to the law of the jurisdiction where it occurred; and

.(b) the act in question is punishable according to the law of the relevant jurisdiction in the United Kingdom; and

(c) the act in question is committed against a child; and

(d) the perpetrator of the act in question is a citizen of the United Kingdom or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of this section. "a child" shall be defined as any human being below the age of 18 years.

(3) In this section, "sexual offence" has the meaning given by section 31(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the legal principle of double jeopardy.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this proposal was debated in Committee. I venture to return

1581
to it for two reasons. First, several noble Lords who were not able to be present on the earlier occasion were kind enough to indicate to me their concern on the subject and have encouraged me to raise the matter again. Secondly, I tried to explore some of the matters which, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate then explained, were in the mind of the Government. I hope that I shall be forgiven, if not positively commended, if I do not repeat this evening everything that I said on the earlier occasion.
The facts of such a foul trade and the sufferings of the children involved are now well known to your Lordships. Following our last debate, I was fortunate to form part of a delegation which discussed the subject with the Minister of State, Mr. Maclean. I believe that we were successful in crystallising what is really in issue between us. As I understand it, it is not disputed by the Government that in a number of cities, principally in Asia, there is a tourist industry patronised by paedophiles from the West. For my part, I would not dispute the fact that the industry is not run exclusively for Western tourists. Of course, there are also local paedophiles. I shall say only that a substantial proportion of those children suffer as a result of people who travel from countries in the West, including this country, and return there afterwards. I suspect—indeed, I shall put it more strongly—I am sure that the Government share our concern in that respect.
I hope that I do not misrepresent the Government in adding that, as I understand it, they do not now seem to place great weight on some of the arguments which they ventilated in the past. In the former debate, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appeared to suggest that it would be a mistake for countries in the West to attempt to prevent such practices because that would remove the incentive for the countries where the offences take place to address the problem themselves.
If that argument was ever intended seriously, I believe that the Government now accept that it is precisely those in the governments and in the non-governmental organisations in countries like Thailand, Sri Lanka and the Philippines who are most troubled by such traffic and who would be most anxious to deal with the matter locally. They are most insistent that, because of the substantial financial interests involved and the corruption in certain sections of the police and other agencies, they need the help and support of countries in the West. In recognising that, as I understand they do, the Government have provided the answer to the second argument which previously they advanced; that since the authorities in countries where offences take place can apply for extradition we should leave those offences to be dealt with in that way.
Leaving aside the problem with the Philippines, where this country has no extradition arrangements, we do not receive applications for extradition. I ventured to ask the Minister of State how many applications for extradition have been received from countries involved with this kind of offence. Understandably, he was not able to specify figures without notice although he was fair enough to indicate that he did not believe that the figures would transpire to be strikingly high. Perhaps
1582
the noble and learned Lord is now in a position to answer that question, although I will understand if he cannot.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for that discussion. I believe that what is now between us is reduced to a single issue. The Government accept that these practices exist. They accept that in consequence children are condemned to be exploited and, in a tragic number of cases, to die of disease, or if not, to die simply of exhaustion. The Government accept, as I understand it, that all the international agencies concerned with the matter, and all the non-governmental organisations which were referred to in our former debate, recommend the acceptance of extra-territorial jurisdiction. They accept that unless action is taken in the West, the problem is unlikely to go away because the countries where the offences take place are not able to deal with them for the reasons that I have mentioned. They accept that this step has already been taken by Sweden, Germany, France and Norway, and that the Australian federal legislature has accepted the principle and is now simply deliberating the details.
The one issue which remains outstanding is that the Government do not believe that it will prove possible to obtain the evidence which will enable prosecutions to be mounted in this country. As I understand it, that is the sole issue which remains between us. I hope I may be forgiven if I confine the remainder of what I have to say to that one question.
In our earlier debate, reference was made to the possibility of this country stationing officials in the cities where these practices are known to exist. That would not entail any serious call on resources. We are concerned at most with some half dozen cities. Of course, they would need the consent of governments locally. They would have no police powers in those jurisdictions. They would need to work with the local enforcement authorities, and they, of course, are not always above corruption. But they would almost certainly have the support of the most senior figures in government there. Corruption, of course, is much more difficult to operate when those on the spot are officials from western countries whose function it is to initiate action. This is a method of operating which this country uses in relation to the obtaining of evidence relating to the international drugs traffic. We have seen a number of prosecutions brought to a successful conclusion on the basis of evidence obtained in that way.
Again, in our earlier debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—he asked me to explain that he had to leave us at that stage—pointed out that a number of non-governmental organisations have agents with a high degree of expertise working in those cities. They could provide a reliable source of information and evidence. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would not be surprised to learn that other countries who have legislated for extra-territorial jurisdiction have not been wholly unmindful of the problem which the Government now urge. Since our earlier debate I have been able to undertake some exploration.
One example which was quoted by the noble and learned Lord in our earlier debate is that of Germany, which has similar legislation on the statute book. We

1583
were told that proceedings had been brought there, all of which had failed. It transpired that there were, in fact, three cases. Of course, not every prosecution will succeed in any jurisdiction which provides a fair trial. That: was a very small sample and it may be that in any event no significant conclusions could have been drawn from it. However, I ventured to ask the reasons why the prosecutions had failed. The Home Office was not able to give that information. Indeed, it did not seem to be clear from whence the information had come. The Coalition on Child Prostitution and Tourism made inquiries in Germany and it was unable to trace information about any prosecutions there. The German Embassy in London had no knowledge of the subject. It now appears, as I understand it, that the information on the Home Office files came from someone in the British Embassy in Thailand who was not quite clear where he had heard the information but who thought that he recollected hearing it from someone in the German Embassy in Thailand. Unless the noble and learned Lord can shed further light on the matter today there does not appear to be any information from Germany on which your Lordships would wish to place much significance.
The Australian House of Representatives, when considering equivalent legislation, was concerned with precisely this problem. It referred the Bill to its Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The committee made a number of recommendations, seeking to rectify defects which I do not think are principally part of the proposals before your Lordships. For example, it recommended the removal of a provision that the evidence of a child must be by video link and instead suggested leaving that possibility to the discretion of the court. It has completed its deliberations and in its tabling statement said:
"The Committee has been concerned to ensure that a Bill which has almost universal political support for its fundamental objective is workable and effective".
The committee further stated:
"The Committee believes that certain clauses can be successfully redrafted to ensure the Bill is effective and enforceable without abandoning the safeguards that have been traditional elements of the criminal law".
The prosecutions which were anticipated in Norway and in Sweden are now proceeding. In the Swedish case, evidence is being taken in Thailand. That practice is, of course, available to the criminal courts here under Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Of course, evidence in cases of child abuse always presents a difficulty. It is not to be expected that there will be a large number of prosecutions, nor that all those which take place will necessarily be successful. I do not believe that it will require a large number of prosecutions to send a message that this is not an offence which can be practised with impunity.
I do not believe that the difficulties are of the order which the Government suggest. I believe that the possibility of proceedings would have a powerful impact on this industry. In particular, I believe that tour operators would be discouraged from arranging these tours because they would know that there will be those who will be assiduous in bringing them to justice.
Historically, this country has an enviable record in the fight against slavery. Indeed, offences in connection
1584
with the slave trade are among those which, if committed by a British subject, may be prosecuted in this country. It would be a tragedy if with that record in respect of adults we were to refuse our help in protecting children. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I do not often speak in this House, but I speak with a certain knowledge, but not of the Far East. I should like to know what are the possibilities for blackmail in this instance. It is easy to make an accusation against somebody. I could see this developing into a nice little industry.
I support the idea in principle but I would have problems with the age mentioned. In many parts of the world sexual activity begins at a fairly young age and that is accepted. I have no quarrel with the noble Lord in his wish to protect children. Equally, I feel that such a provision would be open to abuse. I do not know what other noble Lords think about that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it would be strange if nobody were to comment on the manner of the proposal rather than the content. It is unusual for an amendment to be presented, defeated and re-presented in exactly the same terms in successive stages of a Bill. I for one would not want this occasion to pass without saying that it should not be regarded as a precedent. I hope that the numerous Peers who advised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to do that are here to support him.
Having said that, if it transpires from the Government's answer that the situation has materially changed, there may be an argument in favour of what the noble and learned Lord is doing. I do not wish to present myself as being hostile to his proposition, but I am hostile to the method of asking the House to address the same question twice in successive stages. That is explicitly out of order at Third Reading. It is not out of order at this stage. Therefore, I hope that I shall not be thought curmudgeonly in asking your Lordships to regard it with a little anxiety.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he should know that I took careful advice on the matter. I was told that not only was this technically in order but it is regarded as a perfectly proper practice and not necessarily a practice to be discouraged. It depends upon all the circumstances. I was told that in the present circumstances there was no reason to discourage it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the absence of resonant "hear, hears" when I made my feeble protest suggests that this is an occasion when it could not be discouraged.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, for my part I did not feel that it was a matter for adverse comment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, had raised the matter again. It is a matter upon which I should have thought all Members of the House had profound feelings. We have indeed considered it and voted on it.
As I indicated on the previous occasion, our position is not in any sense one of triumphalism, nor are we at

1585
odds with the aim which the noble and learned Lord seeks to achieve. The only area where we part company with the noble and learned Lord is as to whether this is the way in which that aim is best achieved. It is in no happy sense that I repeat that we are not satisfied with the method chosen by the noble and learned Lord. I accept that he speaks on behalf of a large number of organisations which have considered the matter carefully. Nonetheless, we believe that while this has the appearance of a solution it is not an actual solution.
Leaving aside what is the best remedy, nonetheless, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will accept, this is a problem which is best tackled locally if that is possible. I say that because, besides anything else, according to our best estimates in certain areas and in Thailand in particular the problem is one of child prostitution in which 70 per cent. of the customers of the child prostitutes are local rather than from overseas. We accept that that leaves 30 per cent. from countries which we broadly call the West. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the trade has a great deal of local support. If it is to be stamped out, as I am sure all noble Lords would wish, action must be taken locally.
On the previous occasion we were told the arguments in general. As the House will forgive the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for not going over all the arguments, I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go over all the points that were made on that occasion.
It is not altogether clear whether the possibility of prosecutions in this country would give rise to the possibility of blackmail, as my noble friend Lord Blyth suggested. However, I return with no sense of delight to the point that we are not satisfied that prosecutions in this country would work. I do not have figures for the number of extraditions or prosecutions in countries which have accepted jurisdiction. Nonetheless, I can say that our information on the position in Germany came from the German ambassador to Thailand. At a meeting of various Western ambassadors, Thai authorities and others in Bangkok to discuss this problem, the German ambassador indicated that there had been three cases (which I accept is not a large statistical sample but the noble and learned Lord will accept that there will not be a great many cases). In those cases the prosecutions had failed. The reason for that failure had been the lack of evidence from Thailand. We believe that that indicates there is justification for our fear that even if we introduced this provision as a theoretical possibility, in practice it would not prove possible to mount prosecutions in which there was a likelihood of success. I do not need to say to the noble and learned Lord that the likelihood of success is one of the factors which has to be borne in mind in deciding whether to mount a prosecution.
As I said on the previous occasion, we are willing to look at the position and to consider whether experience from elsewhere shows that we are right in the attitude that we have adopted. For the reasons that I have given, at present we are not satisfied that this is the correct way forward. We feel that concentrating on the local situation is better.
1586
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred to the position in Australia. The position in Australia is particularly significant because the Australian legal system is more like ours than the others to which he referred. The noble and learned Lord referred to the fact that at present a proposal is going through Parliament in Australia to introduce legislation on broadly similar lines. As he fairly admitted, certain problems are being considered. If experience indicates that that legislation works, we are quite willing to learn from that. We shall keep the position under close surveillance.
However, at present we are not satisfied that the amendment is the correct way forward. We believe that such measures as we indicated on a previous occasion, albeit not the most heroic, are nonetheless the most effective way forward. For that reason, I regret that I am not able to accept the amendment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the debate has been substantially briefer than that at Committee stage. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blyth. I would go to the stake with him to ensure that any prosecutions resulted in fair trials. Of course we have to be careful that no injustice results from such legislation. I do not believe that is an issue between us. The countries which have legislated in this respect have had that matter much in mind.
As to what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I accept that this trade does not exist entirely on tourism from the West. I believe that a substantial part does. There are those locally who believe that something could be done to put an end to this foul business if they were supported by governments in the West. The noble and learned Lord appeared to suggest that perhaps the issue could be dealt with—I do not believe he said "satisfactorily"—more satisfactorily locally. But we all know that it is not being dealt with for the reasons that have been ventilated in this series of debates. Senior officials in the governments of the countries concerned would like to have our support. But I agree that the issue between us is whether it would be possible to obtain and present the evidence which would enable prosecutions to be launched successfully.
I have the misfortune to disagree with the noble and learned Lord. However, I accept that he and the Government have directed their minds to the question. I do not believe that it is an appropriate moment again to test the opinion of the House. I hope that we can remain in touch. As the noble and learned Lord says, within a fairly short time there will be further evidence which we can all study. On that basis, and for those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett moved Amendment 125A:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
("Criteria for forfeiting exempted status
. After subsection (2) (c) of section 2 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, leave out from ("or is designed") to end of the section and insert—
("(d) Illegal use of drugs;
or is likely to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage anything falling within paragraph (a) or, in the

1587
case of criminal behaviour or anything falling within paragraph (b) or (d), is likely to any extent to do so; or is likely, whatever the video work depicts, to cause harm to children or young persons or, through their behaviour, to society.").").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put forward these amendments because there is a curious and rather alarming anomaly in the operation of the Video Recordings Act. When your Lordships were last in Committee upon this section of the Bill, I was, alas, in Zurich on musical duties and could not be present. However, I have read Hansard carefully from cover to cover on that subject. The debate centred around the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and indeed carried by your Lordships. Those are amendments which I entirely support, and, as vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification shall have to have much regard to in the future. However, the debate centred upon the nature of the certificates issued by the British Board of Film Classification.
The anomaly to which I refer is the large number of videos which are exempt from being classified. The Video Recordings Act states that,
"a video work is for the purposes of this Act an exempted work if, taken as a whole—(a) it is designed to inform, educate or instruct; (b) it is concerned with sport, religion or music; or (c) it is a video game".
Your Lordships may consider those sensible exclusions because it would be vastly counter-productive for the producers of videos and for the British Board of Film Classification if it were required to certificate the miles of footage which exist on instructions on how to play every known game in sport, on music and on perfectly legitimate education work. Those should be exempt. However, the provision in the Act states that the provision is forfeit only if a work to any significant extent depicts,
"(a) human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated with such activity; (b) mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, animals or humans; and (c) human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions".
Noble Lords may consider that those are perfectly good reasons why a video should forfeit its exemption.
The problem is that at present there are in existence instructional videos—I cite two examples—which are entirely exempt because they do not contain any of the three factors that I have just read to your Lordships. One is called "Deadly Explosives". The video will instruct one on how to concentrate explosives to blow a hole through armour plating using an empty wine bottle and three wooden stakes; making a hand-held napalm bomb from a lemonade container; and tips on how to blow apart an office colleague with a desk top bomb designed as a toy.
Another example is a martial arts video called "Black Medicine, Vital Targets, Maximum Punishment". The most notable martial arts advisers in this country have said that it is a do-it-yourself cocktail of death. The methods could maim or kill and are extremely dangerous. It cannot be sensible that such videos, instructional though they may claim to be, should circulate freely with an exemption from any necessity to be classified.
I have therefore produced an amendment which, I hope, copes with these issues in three ways. First, it inserts a new section after the three that I have already read which would forfeit exemption. Paragraph (d) refers to the illegal use of drugs. Technically at present one could make an instructional video on how to shoot up heroin or how to make crack cocaine which is entirely exempt from submission to the British Board of Film Classification. I believe that that reference is self-evident.
Secondly, the word "likely" occurs twice in the main paragraph of the amendment, which states,
"or is likely to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage anything falling within paragraph (a)".
The paragraph later continues,
"is likely to any extent to do so".
The original Act contains the word "designed". The difference is considerable. The phrase "is likely to" is concerned with the effect of a video. The phrase "is designed" is concerned with the intention of the maker of the video. I hope that your Lordships, and in particular noble and learned Lords, will agree with me that establishing intent is often extremely difficult and nearly always impossible to prove. I believe that we should be concerned with the effect of the video and not with the intentions of its maker. That is the reason why I have altered the word "design" to "likely".
The third and probably the most significant part of the amendment contains the words,
"or is likely, whatever the video work depicts, to cause harm to children or young persons or, through their behaviour, to society".
It will not be lost on your Lordships that I have used the exact words of the noble Earl's amendment with reference to the issues which the British Board of Film Classification or any other designated body must consider when granting certificates. It seems an entirely sensible form of words and to bear repetition in this amendment.
So on those three points I think that we could easily clear up what I regard as a rather monstrous loophole. Let me emphasise to your Lordships that this is not intended to bring in another great wodge of video material for us to classify. It is only to prevent the cynical exploitation of the Video Recordings Act by cynical and exploitative video makers.
I should also explain Amendment No. 125B to which I am expected to speak. This is a totally different and rather innocent matter. It refers to a section of the Video Recordings Act 1984 about the "U" certificate—the "universally acceptable" films. I have added "or young children" after the words:
"particular suitability of the work for viewing by children".
That is for the simple reason that there is a certificate called "Uc", which at the moment is described as especially suitable for viewing by children. It is intended to be especially suitable for viewing by young children; in fact, toddlers. It is meant to be a help to mothers in sorting through the immense amount of "U" certificates who may not easily distinguish what is good for toddlers. It works the other way round, too, because any parents with a bright 11 year-old who in innocence brings home a work described as especially suitable for

1589
children could be dismayed to find, as would the 11 year-old, that it was a "sing along with mother" nursery rhyme video.
The whole point of "Uc" is to help mothers with toddlers. Unless we can put the words "young children" on it, our helpfulness is rather set at nought. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is an entirely sensible amendment. The main drift of the proposal is contained in Amendment No. 125A and I hope that noble Lords and the Government will agree that it is a sensible and helpful provision to stop a really dreadful trade. I beg to move.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I support the clear and succinct explanation of the two amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I do so because of the clarity with which he expressed his proposal and because I have received representations from the NSPCC. It explains in one short paragraph that the new clause is intended to ensure that certain videos at present exempted under the Video Recordings Act are made subject to classification.
The NSPCC made available to me and, I am sure, to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, with his background in the British Board of Film Classification, a description of what goes on. It states that, from a cramped one-bedroom flat on the suburban lip of north Birmingham, Europe is being instructed in the use of C4 explosives; how to kill with a single blow; and how to pick locks with the finesse of a cat burglar. It mentions a deactivated AK47 Russian assault rifle, and so on. I shall go no further on that because the noble Lord is right and I hope that the Government will look at the amendments sympathetically.
I am also chairman of the Video Standards Council, which informs me that it has not been consulted on the matter. It raises one issue, which I hope is not the case. The suggestion is that there is a problem under the two amendments that current affairs videos showing what goes on in Bosnia and Rwanda will have to be classified on the grounds that current affairs could affect young children. I hope that that is not the case and that the Minister will reply positively to the two amendments and that that aspect will be looked at.
For example, I was advised that the Second World War film made by Jeremy Isaacs some years ago—some noble Lords may remember that it was first class— might be affected by the amendments. I hope not, but I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Birkett.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will allow me to reassure him that of course my amendment is in no way intended to catch current affairs programmes such as he mentioned. Indeed, it would be an intolerable burden for us if that weight of material were to fall under this amendment. However, although the word "documentary" is usually used in connection with the entirely proper making of current affairs films, there are occasional exploitation videos which simply use the bloodiest and most unpleasant incidents of modern life—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is in error. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, had sat down and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, seems to be making a second speech when he should only make one.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I acknowledge my error. Obviously the noble Lord had sat down but I think I have said enough to reassure him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I am afraid not. What the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said in response to my noble friend was that the amendment is intended not to cover current affairs. Looking at the wording and referring back to the Video Recordings Act —of which I remember every word with painful clarity, after 11 years!—it seems to me that the amendment would refer to current affairs. It moves away from the intention which we were discussing before the break to the issue of what is likely and the content of the recording.
What worries me about Amendment No. 125A is, first, the moving away from the intention and, secondly, the application on a broad scale to all videos of the new criterion of whether it can cause harm to children or young persons. Surely, it should not be our intention in classifying videos that all videos should be classified on the basis of what could happen to young people. There must be a different standard for adults from young people. With Amendment No. 125B I have no quarrel at all.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I sympathise with the aims behind the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. They are, on the one hand, to protect children from unsuitable or harmful material which may be contained in some videos which are currently exempt from classification and, on the other hand, to enable the British Board of Film Classification effectively to draw attention to those videos which are particularly suitable for young children.
It would certainly be wrong if a factual video were exempt from all controls regardless of its contents. One need only think of the various sex education videos which have become popular in recent years. Those kinds or videos are clearly suitable for an adult audience only and they should not be available to children without restrictions.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, reminded us of what the 1984 Act says about exemptions and the exclusion of exemptions. The criteria for excluding exemptions are in some ways similar to the criteria which the British Board of Film Classification will, under Clause 84, have to use in making its classification decisions. However, there is an important difference between them. Unlike the classification criteria, the exemption criteria are not simply a guide to the exercise of the British Board of Film Classification's discretion. The exemption criteria are intended to determine on an objective basis, for the purposes of the criminal law, whether a particular video is in fact exempt from controls or whether it ought to have been submitted for classification. If an unclassified video is not exempt, then those who are supplying it or who are possessing it for supply are

1591
guilty of an offence and, under Clause 83, they will be liable to two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine if they are convicted in the Crown Court or to a £20,000 fine and six months' imprisonment if they are convicted in a magistrates' court.
It is, therefore, important that those who produce or supply videos should be able to tell clearly whether or not a particular video is exempt and it is important that they should not be liable to criminal penalties simply on the basis that in someone's subjective opinion a video was unsuitable for exemption and ought to have been classified.
The existing exemption criteria relate, therefore, to what are essentially matters of fact. If a video depicts sexual activity or torture or genitalia to a significant extent, there will not be much doubt about the matter. The depiction of illegal drug use probably falls into that category as well. It is rather more difficult, though, when we come to the question of whether a video work is likely to stimulate or encourage the commission of crime, or whether it is likely to cause harm to children and young people. Those are subjects about which there will often be room for debate. That does not matter when these criteria are used in the classification criteria. The purpose of the classification criteria is to lay down questions which the British Board of Film Classification must consider before it reaches its decisions, and about which it is expected to exercise its discretion. But it matters much more in the criminal law context, where the question is not how a particular video should be classified, but whether a person is guilty of supplying an unclassified video work which, as a matter of law, was not exempt.
On the other hand, I am conscious that there are now video works available—educational videos which show people how to make explosives, or pop videos which may portray drug use, for example—which I for one would certainly not want children to see and yet which may be exempt under our present controls.
Bearing in mind the fact that the Video Recordings Act 1984 provides a defence for those who can show that they supplied unclassified videos in good faith, believing on reasonable grounds that they were exempt, on the whole 1 think that it would be right to strengthen the law along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, suggests, if that is possible.
There are, however, concerns about the drafting of the noble Lord's amendments, particularly the first, which is rather complex and is also, it seems to me, at least potentially ambiguous. For example, there is concern as to whether the reference to "criminal behaviour" refers just to criminal sexual behaviour or to any criminal behaviour, which it obviously ought to do. I think that it may also be possible to draft amended exemption criteria in a more felicitous way.
If the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendments I will undertake to consider whether there is a more satisfactory way of trying to achieve his objectives. If there is, I will try to bring back some suitable amendment at Third Reading.
9 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his consideration of the matter. I recognise that the words that I have used are in two quite different contexts: first, in the context of the noble Earl's original amendment which applies to the British Board of Film Classification; and here, obviously, they would apply to the courts when testing whether an exemption was justified or not. I see that distinction. I understand the difficulties that the noble Earl has put forward, and indeed those that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. To the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I can say that in my draft—however it comes back at Third Reading—the word "harm" is the important one. It would take quite a lot, I imagine, to persuade a court that harm was involved. So the average run of documentaries, which is not intended to be caught by such an amendment, would be all right. But I leave that to the draftsmen whom the noble Earl will invoke. I am much obliged to him, and I shall look forward to the Third Reading debate. I beg leave now to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Birkett Lord Birkett had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 125B:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
("Classification of videos: young children
. In subsection (2) (a) of section 7 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, after the words ("particular suitability of the work for viewing by children") insert the words ("or young children").").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 125B. I do not know whether the noble Earl would like to take that amendment away and bring it back at Third Reading, or whether he is inclined to accept it. Either way, I should be entirely happy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was only about to say that, as I thought that Amendment No. 125B was included with the last amendment, I shall certainly consider it as well.
[Amendment No. 125B not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
("Video Recordings: Review of classification
. After section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section:—
"Review of classification
4B.—(1) At any time within a period of six months from a specified date any member of the public may refer to a Member of the House of Commons any video work in respect of which a classification certificate has been issued and give reasons why, in the opinion of that person, either—

(a) no classification certificate should continue in force in respect of that video work; or

(b) a classification should be issued of a description different from that of an existing certificate.

(2) A Member of the House of Commons to whom a video work has been referred under subsection (1) above may at any time within a period of nine months from the specified date request the designated authority to review that video work.
(3) Within twelve months from the specified date them designated authority shall, subject to subsection (4) below, make a determination as to (he suitability of the video work in question (in this section called a 'new determination') as if no previous determination had been made in respect of it.
(4) Where a new determination would not result in the issue of a classification certificate of the same description as

1593
that of an existing certificate, the latter certificate shall continue in force for a period of three months following the date of the new determination, and shall then cease to have effect.
(5) In this section—
"specified date" means such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
"suitability" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section 4A of this Act.
(6) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend did a great service in bringing forward a group of amendments of which the first was Amendment No. 142C. The effect of the group was to raise considerably the penalties for breaches of the legislation controlling video recordings and to raise the criteria against which the board makes its considerations when granting or refusing certificates.
In introducing that group of amendments my noble friend referred to the effect of violent videos on the behaviour of children, who are impressionable, and also to their effect as regards providing models of bad behaviour for adults. He referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice Morland which also suggested that exposure to unsuitable videos might have accounted, at least in part, for the behaviour of the two boys, Thompson and Venables, who murdered James Bulger.
The video which may have prompted that murder is one of the horses that bolted some time ago from the stable. It is ironical that the coming into effect of the resulting legislation will have no effect on that video and others like it. In the course of the debate on that group of amendments I raised the question of retrospective application for certificates with my noble friend, and said that I believed that the public would expect to be protected from the effects of "Child's Play 3" after our work today, since that is what precipitated the amendments in the first place. My noble friend's reference to that suggestion in his closing speech was that his right honourable friend had considerable sympathy with that point of view. He said that he had considered the matter very carefully and took the view that a system involving retrospection simply could not be made to work very well.
I am not sure that noble Lords should be content with that view. This is a grave matter. There is a very large amount of material already in circulation which is certainly not acceptable under the new criteria and which causes a great deal of anxiety to members of the public, and indeed to Members of both Houses.
The Care Trust is an organisation that has given careful thought to this particular issue. It has come forward with a drafting amendment which I have seen and tabled, and which I put before your Lordships now. It is an approach to the problem which I understand is under consideration by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place. The indications are that the committee is favourably impressed by it, although we shall not know for certain until its report is published the day after tomorrow.
The difficulty is to discover a mechanism by which it may be possible to select from the enormous number of videos now in proper circulation those which deserve to be reviewed and to ensure that there is not a flood of irrelevant material put before the board. I understand that the board itself is content to face such work if it is in reasonable quantity.
The model that suggested itself is quite a good one. It is the model of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, otherwise known as the ombudsman, to whom the route is through Members of Parliament. It is suggested that the numbers should be limited by that being the only route whereby a proposal for reclassification or declassification can be made, and made only within a limited period of time. Amendment No. 126 sets that out in detail.
The proposal is that there should be a date by which, during a period of 18 months, that process could be completed and that any video whose certificate was removed or changed would, after a further period, be in the classification or be unclassified as the board may have decided; that during that interval the industry could re-label or withdraw a video from the shelves; and that thereafter the penalties described in the Bill should apply to the improper sale of that kind of material, as it would have done had it been given the new classification or refused classification from the beginning.
I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I feel that it would be absurd to go to the lengths of providing for the protection of young people and others from the kind of material that my noble friend described in Committee and to allow to escape scot-free the material which caused us to do that because it was so awful. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no doubt this is a beautifully drafted amendment but it fills me with horror. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and I were members of the film viewing board on the Greater London Council. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, as the director of the arts and recreation, was the chief officer (I am not sure whether or not it was in his time) responsible for these matters.
Members of the other place presumably would have to watch such videos. Otherwise they could hardly pass on to the British Board of Film Classification the observations of a constituent or anybody else. There is no restriction on who it is because any member of the public can ask any Member of the other place to require a reclassification by the British Board of Film Classification. The mind boggles at the implications of the amendment. It would be totally irresponsible for Members of another place to pass on such a view from any member of the public without having himself viewed the video. In the interests of comity between the two Houses, I suggest that the amendment should be rejected.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I put my name to the amendment and I am grateful to the House for permitting me to say a few words in support of my noble friend. At Second Reading of the Bill I said that I had always had a particular concern about the impact of the

1595
media, especially on children. I believe that a diet of violent material can encourage children to imitate violence or participate early in criminal activity. Therefore I was delighted to see that the Government have tackled the issue of stricter classification of videos.
However, it perplexes me that the Government seem happy to allow videos such as "Child's Play 3" to continue to circulate unimpeded. I believe that there are many members of the public who expect videos such as "Child's Play 3" to be removed from the shelves of video outlets once this legislation comes into force. They will be shocked and confused if they find that those videos are still there. That is why I totally support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Elton.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that for the Government to take such strong action on videos—I welcome such action—suggests to the public that there are in existence works which are having a serious negative effect on our society and especially on our children. If such works do not exist, why have we acted? If such works are currently on sale in the high street and available for hire from local video shops, why do the Government propose to let them continue to circulate without their classification even being reviewed when they propose to restrict similar new material? It would be neither practical nor profitable to view every single video classified. But it seems paradoxical and somewhat irresponsible not to tackle the worst of the material already commercially available. Clearly we cannot have any impact on those videos already in the home; but we can stop more being purchased or hired and remind parents of the dangers of some of those works.
Perhaps I can remind your Lordships that I proposed this matter over 10 years ago when I made my maiden speech on the Video Recordings Bill (as it was) later to become the Video Recordings Act 1984. I quote myself rarely in your Lordships' House because normally I do not feel that I am worth quoting. But on this occasion I shall make an exception because it is not often that I have had the savvy to be able to look with amazing accuracy more than 10 years ahead. Your Lordships may like to consider that point and see whether the Government have similar vision. I asked, "What are the shortcomings?"—referring to the Video Recordings Bill. I continued,
"First, inadequate controls. The Bill provides a category system to regulate the supply of video material but it fails to provide any teeth after the initial point of supply. Indeed, after sale or hire any material may be viewed by or exhibited to persons of any age with impunity. The claim that the Bill provides effective protection for children from corrupting video material is regrettably not true".—[Official Report, 2/4/84; col. 525.]
A time limited, selective, retrospective scheme seems to be the most efficient way of reviewing the videos that have caused such public anxiety. I urge your Lordships to support Amendment No. 126.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I regard with the greatest suspicion any amendment designed to make retrospec-tion in the matter effective. Before I start on the main amendment it is worth saying something in relation to "Child's Play 3". That is a video frequently referred to. I take it from the fact that it was referred to by the noble
1596
Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Ashbourne, that they have both seen it. If not, then their references are probably a little irresponsible.
I have seen the video; I have taken the greatest care to see it. Let me say at once that the connection the film is supposed to have with the James Bulger case is absolutely not shown to be true. That is a connection provided by the press and not by the police who took some evidence on the matter. In the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the police reports on three different cases and three different films that were involved. There is no evidence that there was any connection.
I can well understand the anxiety in relation to the film. Although I hold no brief for it, it is quite a scary film. But it is in no way an example to anybody. It is a film about a mechanical doll which is inhabited by the malevolent spirit of some creature from the past, and it creates mayhem. It is a working model, a little doll. I shall not bore your Lordships with the plot in detail. The action takes place in an American military academy. The malevolent little doll changes blank ammunition to live ammunition with the results that your Lordships can predict. I doubt that it can be used as an example of a really evil film which should be removed from the shelves. Its reputation was entirely misplaced through the press.
However, one film is obviously not the point of the amendment. Nevertheless, with around 30,000 videos not merely on the shelves and available for hire but in many cases bought and in the libraries of people at home, any attempt at a retrospective re-examination of certificates, even if it is channelled by Members of another place, seems to me to be unworkable and I cannot welcome it.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the case against the new clause was made clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. That also would be the view of the Video Standards Council, not only in relation to the overall aspect of retrospection, but also the point that has just been made that should any cassette be reclassified, those existing copies in private homes would be retrospective-ly illegal. The whole concept is misconceived and I hope that the Government will not accept it.
One point about which I feel I have a right to say something as it is not so long since I was there, is the idea that Members of Parliament should play a part in the matter; that the House of Commons should play a part. Of all the things that I have missed in the past two years, apart from the joy of being here, my work as a Member of Parliament ranks highly. My loyalty was of course to the political party which I first joined in 1937. But my loyalty was to my constituency, not just to the constituency party once a month, but to the doctors, teachers and people I met in the clubs and churches. The job of a Member of Parliament is a real one. The independence of Members of Parliament arises out of that.
I was once asked to advise the Israeli Government. They always wanted to change their one-constituency proportional representation system whereby you were elected by all the electors in the area and there is no

1597
constituency representation. They would dearly love to get out of that situation. I understand it. A Member of Parliament does not have a loyalty to his constituency, but the right, in the best relationship, to use his own judgment.
How does a Member of Parliament use his judgment about a video that comes along? He has to look at it. He says, "No", I am not prepared to do this. There are many different views down the other end of the corridor".
I learnt one thing in Northern Ireland. I found that, with seven Assembly members for each constituency under proportional representation, on an issue they all wrote to the Secretary of State. When that ended I found, through the system in Northern Ireland, that Catholics would not write to a Protestant Member of Parliament. Very foolishly, I said that if the person had written from outside the constituency, they had to write to the Member who legally represented them. I soon found that was not tenable. On both sides they all agreed that Catholic Members would take from Catholics from whatever part of the Province and Protestant Members would take from Protestants from any part of the Province. There is not the same constituency representation as there is here. I only offer that example to show that it is not a straightforward situation.
This new clause is flawed basically because the noble Lord does not understand the nature of a Member of Parliament. To ask a Member of Parliament to carry out this task is misconceived and for that reason alone I hope that the Government will reject it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for explaining his amendment and how it would apply the new classification criteria retrospectively to selected videos. I know that many people will share my noble friend's anxieties. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already written to my noble friend expressing his own instinctive sympathy with the idea that we should now enable the British Board of Film Classification to look again at some of the works which have already been classified in order to try to apply the new classification criteria to them.
However, as my right honourable friend also explained, he has concluded that a system of retrospection—even of partial retrospection—could not be made to work in practice, and that it would tend to undermine the classification system. My noble friend's amendment prescribes a mechanism by which works might be selected for review. Members of the public would have a period of six months, from a date to be specified by order, during which they could refer works to Members of another place. That has received scant shrift from the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. According to my noble friend Lord Elton, they would then have a further three months in which to decide whether themselves to refer the video works in question back to the British Board of Film Classification for reconsideration.
The British Board of Film Classification would have to reconsider all the works which were referred back to it within 12 months of the original specified date. If a
1598
work were reclassified, or if it were refused classification, the old classification would stand for a transitional period of three months.
This procedure would deal with some of the problems which are posed by a system of retrospection. It would mean that the British Board of Film Classification did not have to review each of the 25,000 or so works which it has already classified. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said that there were 30,000. Whether the figure is 25,000 or 30,000, there are several of them. It would allow retrospection only for a limited period, and it would place some limit on the numbers of works to be re-examined by using Members of Parliament as a sort of filtering mechanism. Of course, we have no idea how many works would be referred back, so there could still be a very considerable burden on the British Board of Film Classification.
I have some doubts also about the proposal to involve Members of Parliament directly in the censorship process in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, considered that they would be wholly inappropriate and I can understand the reasons why. My noble friend will be a brave fellow if he follows that hare down that route.
However, while the amendment provides a mechan-ism for dealing with some of the practical aspects of re-examining classified works, it seems to me that it does not address the fundamental difficulties, which are the uncertainty which retrospection would introduce into the classification system and the impossibility, in practice, of removing from circulation copies of a work which has been reclassified or which has been technically withdrawn.
Once a video work has been classified and once copies are in circulation there is, in practice, no way of recalling them. The most which could be done would be to withdraw copies from the shelves of the larger and more responsible shops and to prevent unauthorised new copies from reaching the market. Copies which are already in people's homes would stay there, while copies which were circulating in private hands or through small corner shops, car boot sales and so forth would continue to circulate.
In the vast majority of cases it would not be possible successfully to prosecute those who are supplying copies of a withdrawn, reclassified or re-cut work, because they would rightly say that they were supplying a work which had every appearance of being a legally classified work and which had indeed been legally classified; and that they had therefore supplied it in good faith, having no reason to suppose that the classification had been withdrawn. This would be a complete defence to any prosecution. Selective retrospection would in fact mean that no one could be sure from day to day whether a given work still retained its legal classification, or whether it had been the subject of a complaint and was being reconsidered.
The period of three months during which the old classification would still be valid under the amendment might at best defer the problem for three months, but it could also add to the confusion as it would mean that the same work could simultaneously be supplied under two different legal classifications. Once it was decided that a work should be reclassified, the amendment allows for

1599
it to continue to be sold for three months. This would mean that the same work could legally be sold under two different categories: the old one, which would be considered wrong, and the new one. This would reduce the entire classification system to chaos, making past BBFC classifications unreliable as a guide to the actual legal status of the videos concerned.
As a total aside, I well remember some 25 years ago the terrible hoo-ha about Lady Chatterley's Lover. It was supposed to be a most improper book and I wondered what on earth it contained, so I looked around and found a copy. I am bound to say that I read it from cover to cover and could not see what was wrong with it. I thought that that was a testimony to my broad-mindedness. It was only when I had read it that I looked at the front cover and saw that it was the expurgated version. I was enthused to find the unexpurgated version and to discover what it was that had been left out. That shows that there are complications when there are two versions of the same thing—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister must finish the story, please.
Earl Ferrers; My Lords, I shall finish it. I never got the unexpurgated version and so, in my naivety, I am still at a loss to know what all the fuss was about.
The only point of that little story was to show that there are complications when two versions of the same thing are in circulation at one time. Much of the impetus behind the calls for a retrospective application of the new classification criteria is prompted by the concerns about the video to which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and my noble friend Lord Elton referred. The noble Lord asked penetratingly who had seen Child's Play 3 —he did not receive an answer. I have not seen it, so the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has the advantage of me on that. That video has been cited in the press as having contributed to the horrific murder of James Bulger. As I explained when we last debated this part of the Bill, the police found no evidence that that video was in any way responsible for that terrible crime, or that either of the two murderers had ever seen it. Many of the reports of alleged similarities between the murder and the video bore little or no relation to its actual contents. There is no guarantee that if it were re-examined it would be banned. It is already in the 18 category which is the highest ordinary classification awarded to videos.
It is notorious that hard cases make bad law. We should not be justified in undermining the classification system and incurring all the other difficulties that I have tried to describe just to try to ban one video, especially when there can be no guarantee that the video concerned would be banned and, if it were banned, that we could guarantee that it would be removed from circulation.
My noble friend might say that he was not putting forward the amendment because of one terrible video. I am sure that that is the reason, but for all the reasons that I have given I believe that it would not be appropriate to include the amendment in the Bill, although I have great sympathy with my noble friend's anxieties which stimulated him to put down the amendment. I believe that it would be impossible to go down the retrospection route.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend and to those noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I hasten to say that the amendment is not an attack upon a particular video work. I readily confess that I have not seen 'Child's Play 3". I have seen many worse things shown to me by the Metropolitan Police, but I have not seen that one. It is the whole category of violent and unsuitable material upon which I believe that it is the function of the board and not your Lordships' House to make a decision.
I see that my position is inconsistent, because in the amendment I am inviting Members of another place to perform that function. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, rightly took me to task for allocating a disagreeable and burdensome duty to Members which, he said, could be foisted on them by people from another constituency. He pointed out that there were circumstances in which that was a good thing, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, equally pointed out that it could be from another constituency, and that that could be a bad thing.
The one thing that the amendment has done is to boggle the mind of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, more successfully than any amendment that I have yet moved. We boggled him onto the Treasury Bench here, then onto the Cross Benches, briefly out of the Chamber, and then back to his place. I regard that as a significant achievement. More seriously, I turn to what my noble friend said. He said that the amendment was unacceptable because it was uncertain in its effects; it was incomplete; it was ineffective; and it would lead to a period of confusion.
Those are serious charges. In no way do I hold this up as a model amendment, beautifully, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, though it may have been drafted. I hold it up merely to encourage my noble friend and his right honourable friend not to let go entirely of the idea of some retrospective control, however limited, until the report of the Select Committee of another place is available in two days' time. By withdrawing the amendment now, I shall maintain the opportunity for the Government, or others, to put down on Third Reading an amendment which is in tune with whatever that committee may recommend. I am grateful to your Lordships, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 126A:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
("Offence of supplying sexually explicit still images on computer disc

. —(1) Any person who supplies to a child under the age of 16 data stored on a computer disc, or by other electronic means, which contains a sexually explicit image which is not a moving image shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who supplies; in the course of a trade or business a computer disc, or data stored by other electronic means, which—

(a) contains a sexually explicit image which is not a moving image, and

(b) is not indelibly and legibly marked with the words "contains sexually explicit material", and

(c) does not incorporate an effective form of copy protection,

shall be guilty of an offence.

1601

(3) An image is sexually explicit for the purposes of this section if it depicts—

(a) human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated with such activity;

(b) human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions;

or is designed to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage anything falling within paragraph (a) above.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both,

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is no doubt that new technologies which have the power to enrich our lives have also a darker side. The incredible access they give us to art, music, information and communication has also the potential to bring pornography into our very homes. New technology increases the number of ways in which pornography can be produced. Digitised images can be created by linking a video camera to a computer or even by merely playing a video tape. Modems enable images to be sent through telephone lines, even across national boundaries, and bulletin boards and electronic libraries can provide a vast source of pornographic images. Existing sex magazines can easily be scanned, creating digitised copies. Indeed, one magazine has already released a compilation on CD ROM, a medium similar to the normal compact disc.
While those increases in the source of pornography are of immense anxiety, there is another equally worrying feature of the technologies. I refer to the potential for a tremendous increase in the distribution of material, with our children particularly vulnerable because of their close association with computers. Perhaps grudgingly, we accept that youngsters obtain access to adult magazines—the so-called "top shelf pornography. However, several factors limit the extent of that. Retailers are usually most responsible and rarely do they knowlingly supply such magazines to youngsters. The nature of such magazines is obvious to see and few youngsters would risk taking one to school. Parents are likely to discover a magazine kept at home, thereby enabling them to exercise some degree of control.
However, computer discs have few such constraints; they are small, cheap and innocuous and parents are unlikely to know how to unlock their secrets. In addition, they can be easily copied and distributed to friends who can then continue the process. Collecting pornographic pictures on disc could easily become a modern-day equivalent of cigarette card collections as images are swapped among school friends.
Top-shelf porn is unlikely to be obscene in a legal sense and the proposed amendment to the Video Recordings Act, while most welcome in enhancing the protection of children, will not apply to still pictures. There is currently no control over the supplying of digitalised top-shelf magazine pictures to youngsters. My amendment seeks to create a sanction for any adult who supplies a sexually-explicit image to a youngster primarily because of the distribution cascade which
1602
could be created. That should restrict the access of youngsters, in particular in the short term, while modems and scanners are outside their likely budgets.
There is precedence for specific protection in relation to another medium of particular interest to children; that is, comics. Statute prohibits the sale of comics containing scenes of an objectionable nature if they are likely to be read by children. In addition, specific protection is given to children in relation to the sale of videos. As a result, amendments are proposed to the Video Recordings Act in relation to computer games; that is, to a series of digitalised images. I believe that the same protection is necessary in relation to computer discs and my amendment seeks to achieve that.
The amendment also seeks to support parental control by making the contents of discs much more apparent. There is no doubt that parental awareness of such issues is crucially important in tackling the problem. The amendment should result in a raised awareness of the problem and a greater ability to supervise youngsters whose parents lack the technical knowledge to access discs directly. The schoolyard scenario is not merely likely but inevitable. While I believe that the threat is so overwhelming and that we cannot prevent it materialising, we can, and indeed we must, create an environment where access is reduced and parental control can exercise some restraint on distribution. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I support my noble friend most strongly. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we are seeing only the beginning of a considerable revolution in the transmission of information. It will move very fast and the next Bill into which such a measure can be inserted is a long way away. It would be a great pity if we did not take such steps as we can at this early stage.
I speak with hesitation because I realise that the children most at risk from this material are likely to be far more computer literate than I shall ever be. I hope that this House will control material so as to protect them. That is something as regards which we can have an ambition but no certainty. My noble friend Lord Gisborough has seen and is trying to stem a great danger. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the Government will try to find a proper way—perhaps this way or perhaps another—of stemming it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gisborough for explaining his anxiety about the possible exposure of children to unsuitable material on computer discs. I am sure that we share that anxiety. Many of your Lordships will have seen the recent surveys estimating that an alarming proportion of schools have problems with the circulation of computer pornography, and that alarming numbers of pupils have seen such material.
However, I am not convinced that my noble friend has set about this problem in the right way. In the first place, it is not the case that the law does not apply to computer discs; it does. Discs which contain moving images constitute video recordings and they are therefore subject to the controls in the Video Recordings Act 1984, which this Bill considerably strengthens. One

1603
of the changes made by the Bill will be to extend the definition of a video work to cover moving images which are stored electronically on devices other than discs or tapes, thereby ensuring that the law keeps pace with improving technology. Discs which contain still images are subject to the same controls as books, magazines and other publications—principally the Obscene Publications Act 1959—and are subject also to the Protection of Children Act 1978, which makes it an offence to publish or distribute child pornography.
The Bill also strengthens our controls on obscenity, and particularly on computer pornography by making clear that transmissions between computers are covered by the Obscene Publications Act; by extending the law to cover child pornography, which is manufactured by computer; by making it an imprisonable offence merely to possess child pornography; by increasing the penalties for obscenity offences in Scotland; and by making obscenity and child pornography offences in England and Wales serious arrestable offences.
As your Lordships will recall, Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act makes it an offence to publish, or possess for publication for gain, any article which, taken as a whole, has a tendency to deprave and corrupt those likely to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it. Because the potential audience is an important part of the offence, a sexually explicit image which might be harmful to children under the age of 16 and what is likely to be seen by them, may be caught by the Act even though the same article would be unlikely to deprave and corrupt adults.
In addition to the criminal offence, Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act provides a forfeiture procedure under which articles which are believed to be obscene and which are kept for publication for gain may be seized by the police under a magistrates' warrant and brought before the magistrates for forfeiture. Figures on forfeiture are not kept centrally, but from inquiries which have been made of the Metropolitan Police and the Greater Manchester Police, I understand that in 1993 those two forces alone seized 2,619 computer discs.
It is quite clear, then, that computer discs are not outside the law, but there may of course be practical problems in catching those who break the law. That is especially so in cases when those who are circulating the material are schoolboys who are, as my noble friend said, swapping computer discs in the same way as some of your Lordships may have swapped conkers or cigarette cards.
However, I cannot see that my noble friend's amendment gets round that practical problem of enforcement. What it does is to prohibit the supply to children under 16 of sexually explicit still images either on computer disc or supplied by some other electronic means. It also prohibits the commercial supply of such material to adults, unless various requirements are complied with. Of course, what is sexually explicit is not necessarily obscene; what is sexually explicit is, at the same time, narrower than what is obscene, as something can be sexually explicit without being obscene; indeed, it sometimes can be obscene without being sexually explicit.
1604
My noble friend Lord Gisborough has taken the components of his definition of what is sexually explicit from the Video Recordings Act 1984 but, of course, that Act does not ban sexually explicit material. It merely requires it to be classified. The Video Recordings Act 1984 therefore applies to any depiction of human sexual activity or human genitalia. I do not think mat it is necessarily always wrong to provide those under the age of 16 with material which falls into that category. For example, that may be necessary in sex education lessons. Many schools now use computers as teaching aids in various subjects. I believe that it would be odd to provide that it was an offence for them to use illustrations on a computer disk which would have been perfectly legal in a textbook.
We need to consider the difference which is made by the fact that the Video Recordings Act 1984 is concerned with moving images, while my noble friend's amendment is concerned with still images. Moving images of human sexual activity or genitalia will obviously in most cases be film footage of real people. Why people should volunteer to be filmed in that way puts the imagination into overdrive—but they do, and it is clearly right that we should require the results to be classified and if necessary censored.
Still images of sexual activity or genitalia may be photographic images of real people, but they may not. My noble friend's definition is by no means limited to that. As far as I can see, his definition would catch all those paintings of "Leda and the Swan" or "The Rape of Lucrecia", which show sexual activity, and all the other works of art, from Michelangelo's statue of David and his paintings in the Sistine Chapel onwards, which happen to show human genitalia —provided, of course, that the image was on a computer disc or stored by other electronic means. I cannot see why computer discs should be especially singled out for censorship in that way.
I am also concerned by the fact that my noble friend's amendment provides no defence for those who supply computer discs innocently, not knowing the nature of their contents. Also, it is not apparent from looking at a computer disc what it contains. It would seem to be quite possible for someone in all ignorance to pass the wrong disc to a child —perhaps a disc which has been tampered with by someone else. In those cases it would be unjust to convict that person of an offence.
Finally, I notice that it would be an offence under the amendment to supply computer discs which contain still sexually explicit images to adults on a commercial basis, unless the discs were: indelibly marked with a warning and incorporated an effective form of copy protection. I am not an expert on the subject. However, I am not sure that there is really any effective form of copy protection. If there were, I am sure that manufacturers would be only too glad to use it, rather than asking for further protection under copyright legislation. Therefore, the amendment might result in an absolute ban on the provision of sexually explicit computer material which, as I explained, might go a long way further than I imagine my noble friend intended.

1605
I am afraid that I have given a rather lengthy answer to my noble friend's problem. I understand what he is seeking to achieve, but I hope that he will realise why I find it difficult to support his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that long explanation which will be most interesting to read in Hansard. I shall, perhaps, return to the matter on Third Reading if I can find a way to get around the traps to which he referred. My noble friend mentioned child pornography. However, it is pornography being supplied to children rather than actual child pornography. I do not think that my noble friend properly covered the question of the marking of discs; in other words, that discs containing pornography should be marked so that at least their contents are known.
Similarly, I do not believe that my noble friend appreciated the fact that such pornography can be passed over by telephone in a fraction of a second from the most unpleasant sources around the world. At any rate, I am most grateful for my noble friend's explanation. I shall take the matter away and reconsider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 87 [Amendment of Sexual Offences Act 1956]:
Lord Ponsonby Lord Ponsonby moved Amendment No.l26B:
Leave out Clause 87.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137A, 186A to 186D, 197A, 206A and 209B. The amendments are counterparts of those that I tabled in Committee. They have exactly the same intention as the former amendments, but I have had the benefit of some consultation with the Minister's office. As a result, the amendments have been much improved. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to thank the noble Earl for his help. I say that without any prejudice to the comments he may wish to make with regard to these amendments.
The amendments make any case of non-consensual buggery, whether of a woman or of a man, rape. That is the definition which the amendments encompass. I believe this to be an extremely important reform of the law. Before explaining why, I would like to make one thing clear. These are not amendments principally concerned with homosexual sex, nor do they relate directly to the debates we have had about the age of consent. I say that because I believe it is important to be clear that rape is a crime of violence and has nothing to do with what the law on consensual sex should be. It can be committed by a man against a woman or against another man; and the publicly acknowledged sexuality of the perpetrator has no bearing at all on the crime, or on the seriousness with which it should be treated. I believe it is a matter of fact that a substantial number of those who commit rape against another man are in fact heterosexuals.
The original definition of rape was embodied in Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and covered only vaginal intercourse with a woman. This was then amended by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 which most notably gave better protection to the victim because, of course, part of the horror of rape is that victims suffer greatly after the event and the trial itself can exacerbate their suffering.
The amendment relating to marital rape, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, at the Committee stage of this Bill, which was accepted by your Lordships, re-enacted the definition of rape in Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 in the light of the 1976 Act, but also so as to include rape within marriage. The proposal is to substitute a proposed new Section 1 of the 1956 Act which is why the amendment involves leaving out Clause 87, which was the noble Lord's amendment. My amendment includes all the salient matters in his amendment; therefore, I am not asking your Lordships to go against your earlier decision in Committee. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is supportive of my amendments.
The guts of my proposal are simply expressed in my Amendment No. 137A. The proposed new section states:
"It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man. A man commits rape if (a) he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and (b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it."
The tests in paragraph (b) have been applied by the courts for some years and are well understood, although there have of course been some notorious cases. I suggest that they may be inevitable with crimes of this nature. I seek to extend those tests to other acts of non-consensual intercourse. The maximum penalty for all definitions of rape, whatever the gender of the victim, will therefore be life imprisonment. All the other amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 137A. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I support these amendments not only for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but in addition to support Amendment No. 137A which covers an aspect of the law in this area which was the subject of an amendment I tabled in Committee. At that time I sought to extend to the male complainant in a trial involving sexual complaint the same protection which the law currently affords to a woman complainant.
Under the current law in a rape case the complainant may not be cross-examined about her previous sexual history without leave of the judge. That leave in practice is given but when it is clear that the questions to be asked are relevant and necessary to the defence. In effect, that restriction bars questioning of that type which is intended either simply to discredit the witness or to render the witness more readily willing to agree to questioning. Under the present law that restriction only applies to a woman in limited cases of sexual offence involving rape.
The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is advancing tonight alters the definition of

1607
rape and would therefore extend that protection to male complainants in these circumstances. By extending that definition it consequentially extends that protection now afforded only to women and therefore renders unnecessary the tabling of my earlier amendment tonight. I hope, for that reason and the others that have been advanced, that the Minister will accept the amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I undertook, in Committee, to reflect upon the case which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, put then for a re-definition of the offence of rape. I sensed that there was a good deal of support for his amendments. In particular, it is strange that the penalty for non-consensual buggery of a man should be less than that for the rape of a woman. But the benefits of the noble Lord's proposal would extend beyond that; in particular, by giving both male and female victims of non-consensual buggery protection from cross-examination about their sexual history.
I pointed out in Committee that the Government's advice from learned committees which had examined the question in the past had been that the current definition of rape matched a public understanding of what the offence entailed. That is clearly a matter of opinion. The public's understanding may well have changed. Certainly, there has been substantial press coverage of an offence which appears now to be universally called "male rape"—that is, the non-consensual buggery of one man by another man. Other countries have different definitions of rape. It would probably always have surprised many people that non-consensual buggery of a woman was not "rape" in law.
From time to time the Court of Appeal has had to consider the offence of non-consensual buggery in relation both to male and to female victims. It is quite clear that the court has regarded non-consensual buggery of a woman as being at least as serious as rape. It is also clear that, on occasion, the maximum penalty of 10 years for non-consensual buggery of a man has inhibited the court.
I also said in Committee that the Government would not have chosen this Bill as a vehicle for sexual offences law reform. That remains the case as a statement of our preference, but I have some sympathy also with the view that the opportunities to improve the law in this area are few and far between. We should not let the best be the enemy of the good, and we might wait a considerable time to receive a Bill which is devoted entirely to this area of the law. In short, the Government would like to improve the lot of both the male and the female victims of these terrible crimes. On reflection, we see the force of the argument that it is worth doing what can be done quickly.
We have contemplated whether we ought simply to increase the penalty for non-consensual buggery of a male. However, that would confer a maximum penalty of life imprisonment on an offence which only requires, as a matter of fact, an absence of consent. Rape, quite properly, requires that the defendant knew that the victim did not consent but nevertheless went ahead anyway, or was reckless as to whether the victim
1608
consented. In any event, we are confident that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is not pre-empting public opinion in suggesting that rape should be re-defined in this way. It may be that, in fact, he is just giving us the opportunity to catch up with it.
The current law does a disservice to the victims of these very serious crimes. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has offered us a way of putting that right without diverting this Bill from its principal concerns. I am grateful to him and to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for the trouble that they have taken. I am content to accept the amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I can only say how grateful I am to the noble Earl for his words. He seems to have considered all aspects of my argument. I am very pleased that he has accepted my amendments.
I have one question for the noble Earl. Perhaps he will let me know his intentions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The noble Earl has said that he is willing to accept my amendment. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Clause 91 [Contracted out parts of prisons, etc.]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 78, line 5, leave out from ("the") to ("by") in line 6 and insert ("provision or running (or the provision and running) by him, or (if the contract so provides) for the running").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 127 makes explicit the power of the Secretary of State to enter into contracts not only for the running of a prison, but also for the provision of a prison, or for both the provision and its running. This will ensure that plans can be made for the design, construction, management and finance of new prisons.
Amendment No. 129, similar to that introduced in respect of secure training centres, is designed to ensure that after land is leased to a contractor for construction and management of a new prison, possession of the land may be regained where appropriate. This will enable the land, and any buildings on it, to be recovered at the expiry of the contract. That amendment also sets aside provisions concerning restrictions on forfeiture and covenants against assignment, and covers any agricultural land which may be used for prison purposes.
Amendments Nos. 128, 130 and 131 are consequen-tial to Amendments Nos. 127 and 129.
Amendments Nos. 131A to 131G make similar provisions in respect of Scotland.
Amendments Nos. 131B, 131D and 131E are consequential to Amendment No. 131A. Amendments Nos. 131F and 131G are consequential to Amendment No. 131E. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 128 to 130:
Page 78, line 7, leave out from second ("prison") to ("shall") in line 9 and insert:
("(1A) While a contract under this section for the running of a prison or part of a prison is in force—
(a) the prison or part").
Page 78, line 16, at end insert:

("(1B) Where the Secretary of State grants a lease or tenancy of land for the purposes of any contract under this section, none of the following enactments shall apply to it, namely—

(a) Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (security of tenure);

(b) section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (restrictions on and relief against forfeiture);

(c) section 19(1), (2) and (3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (covenants not to assign etc.); and

(d) the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

In this subsection 'lease or tenancy' includes an underlease or sub-tenancy.").

Page 78, line 19, leave out ("as respects which such a contract") and insert ("for the running of which a contract under this section").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 96 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 81, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 8 and insert:
("(b) in the definitions of "contracted out prison" and contractor", for the words "section 84(2)" there shall be substituted the words "section 84( )";
(bb) after those definitions").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Contracting out of prisons]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 131A to 131D:
Page 84, line 26, leave out from first ("the") to second ("by") and insert ("provision or running (or the provision and running) by him, or (if the contract so provides) for the running").
Page 84, line 27, leave out from ("Scotland,") to ("shall") in line 30 and insert:
("(1A) While a contract under this section for the running of a prison or part of a prison is in force—
(a) the prison or part").
Page 84, line 38, at end insert:

("(1B) Where the Secretary of State grants a lease for the purpose of any contract under this section, none of the following enactments shall apply to it—

(a) sections 4 to 7 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 (irritancy clauses); and

(b) the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991.

In this subsection "lease" includes a sub-lease.").

Page 84, line 40, leave out ("as respects which such a contract") and insert ("for the running of which a contract under this section").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 108 [Provision of new prisons]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 131E to 131G:
Page 88, line 44, leave out subsection (1).
Page 89, line 8, leave out ("Subsections (1) and (2)") and insert ("Section 101(1) and subsection (2)").
Page 89, line 21, leave out from second ("in") to end of line 24 and insert:
("(a) any prison provided under a contract entered into under section 101(1) above;
(b) any prison declared to be such under subsection (2) above and not vested in the Secretary of State; or
(c) any heritable or moveable property belonging to any prison mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, to be vested in the Secretary of State.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 121 [Service in England and Wales and Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 95, line 28, at end insert:
("(3A) For the purposes of this section, subsections (2) and (3) of section 146 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall not be taken to include reference to any member of the prison service as defined in subsection (3) of this section").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with terms and conditions of employment for prison officers. Amendment No. 132 ensures that rights conferred by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act apply to prison officers.
Currently under Section 146 of that Act, those who are in the police service, or who hold powers and privileges of a constable, are excluded from Parts II, III and V and Sections 8, 9, 53 and 86 of that Act. Those sections among other things confer the right to return after maternity leave and the arrangements for maternity leave. They also include provisions for the failure of an employer to allow a woman to return to work after maternity leave to be treated as dismissal.
I understand that the Prison Officers' Association has had cases where the prison department has brought forward maternity leave to 11 weeks before the expected week of childbirth without informing the employee until the sixth week. Where a person is only eligible for 14 weeks' maternity leave, such a practice could leave that person with only three weeks' maternity leave after the child is born or even less if the birth were late. The authority for that action comes from paragraph 179 of the staff handbook of the Home Office which states,
"If you are still absent on sick leave at the start of the 1lth week before your expected date of confinement, your maternity leave will be brought forward".
This would appear to be contrary to the provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act. But, of course, if prison officers are regarded as constables, the rights conferred by that Act do not apply to them. That, therefore, seems to be rather inequitable. Moreover, there is a whole range of employment rights contained in Parts II, III, V and VII which are ruled out for people in the police service. That is defined as:

"(a) as a member of any constabulary maintained by virtue of any enactment, or

(b) in any capacity by virtue of which a person has the powers or privileges of a constable".

This issue was recently brought sharply to the attention of everyone, including the Prison Officers' Association, as a result of the court action and resultant decision which relied heavily on prison officers being regarded as having the powers and privileges of constables.
It seems to me that this affected not only their right to belong to a union and to take industrial action but also the rights of other employees enshrined in the legislation to which I have just referred. I am not at all sure that this was ever the intention. The simple amendment that I propose would put that right and I invite the Minister to accept it.
I would say that we are plainly most concerned about the whole issue of maternity rights, but there are other employment rights involved as well. I would very much like to hear from the Minister that he is either prepared to accept the amendment or he can in some way or

1611
another assure me that there is no need for the amendment because those rights are covered anyway elsewhere. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the recent court case where the status of prison officers was in issue. That case highlighted their role as constables. The effect of the case on their role as constables is that it was held that they were not given the protection of the employment legislation. That was within a particular context.
However, the whole purpose of Clause 121(1) is that the relevant employment legislation as defined in subsection (2) shall have effect as if an individual who was a member of the prison service and acted in a capacity as a constable were not to be regarded as being in the police service for the purposes of any provisions of that legislation. That is because the exemption from that legislation is an exemption of those who are in the police service. In other words, if you are in the police service you are not covered.
Clause 121(1) states that the legislation is to have effect as if the person is to be regarded as not being in the police service. In other words, that person is to be taken out of the exempt category. It follows that in that situation the person will have the protection of the relevant employment legislation. It is because that person is therefore put back into the general category of people who are regarded as being within the employment legislation that Clause 122 goes on to provide—and this is an area where I fully appreciate that the noble Baroness may disagree with the policy behind it but nonetheless it does provide—for matters relating to inducing such officers to withhold services and commit an act in breach of discipline.
The whole purpose of Clause 121, particularly subsection (1), is to give prison officers in England and Wales rights under the employment legislation. I say "England and Wales" because, as the noble Baroness will be aware, in Scotland since such people do not have the rights and privileges of constables, they are not taken out of the employment legislation. So Clause 121 does not give rights to officers in Scotland but it does to those in England and Wales. I therefore feel, with the greatest possible respect, that the amendment is unnecessary and that what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve is in effect achieved by the provisions of Clause 121(1).
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. It will go on to the record and will, I am sure, have the effect of setting at rest a number of the fears that have been expressed to me by the Prison Officers' Association. Certainly the assurance that the general purpose of Clause 121 is to ensure that people in the prison service receive the full coverage of the employment rights in the appropriate legislation is very welcome indeed. It was not my intention this evening to do other than to seek the views of the Government in relation to both the court action that had been taken and the position of prison officers in relation to the sections of the Employment Protection
1612
(Consolidation) Act 1978. However, having received those assurances, for which I thank the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 133:
Leave out Clause 122.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to a matter that is rather more substantial. Noble Lords will be aware that in Committee we sought to make concessions to the view of the Government, who are opposed to possible collective industrial action by prison officers. In Committee we sought an amendment which would have adhered to the Government's view except in so far as, where health and safety issues were involved, prison officers should be able to have recourse to the ultimate sanction of the withdrawal of labour. The Government, however, refused to budge an inch over this issue. I have therefore tabled an amendment today to register our opposition to the dilution, as we see it, of the fundamental right of prison officers collectively to take industrial action.
That right, as noble Lords will be aware, is enshrined in many international conventions and declarations to which the Government are a signatory. I shall not go over them again. We went over them in some detail in Committee. Clause 122 effectively reduces to nil the right of prison officers to employ that sanction collectively. It is an ultimate sanction. We are not talking here about people who are normally extremely militant. Many of them were formerly in the Armed Forces, where discipline is almost a way of life. Industrial action of any kind is not undertaken lightly. But the nature of the Prison Service is such that when there is any kind of industrial action it immediately attracts media attention.
Nor are we dealing here with normal working conditions. If we look at the state of the prison system at present we can see why it is important for prison officers to retain their right to this ultimate sanction. The prison population has risen sharply in the past few years. Sixteen months ago the prison population was around 40,000. It is now nearly 49,000. In the first four months of this year the population of prisons in England and Wales went up by 3,500, an average increase of 300 a week. The remand population has gone up by nearly 50 per cent. in the past 15 months. The number of juvenile offenders in custody has increased markedly. Fine defaulters given gaol sentences have doubled in the past 18 months. The population increase leads to knock-on effects that make prisoners much more difficult to handle and more volatile. There is a shortage of suitable accommodation. Prisoners are kept in prisons a long way from families and that increases tension.
Moreover, between 1981 and 1991 the number of prisoners serving between five and 10 years increased by 300 per cent. During the same period the proportion of prisoners serving a sentence of life imprisonment increased by 76 per cent., and those convicted of violence against the person by 21 per cent. The supply of accommodation has not kept pace. Prisoners are being kept in accommodation that is not secure enough

1613
for their needs. That is reflected in the increase in assaults in prisons. The Government's own figures show that between May 1990 and May 1992 assaults on prison staff increased by 56 per cent. Last year alone they increased by 33 per cent. Last year, on average, one prison officer in eight was assaulted by a prisoner.
There have been 13,000 drug finds in the past five years. Drugs are another cause of prisoner violence. The opportunities for violence against staff and prisoners and for bullying and drug taking have also increased. It is a laudable objective to keep prisoners out of cells but the reality is that there are no more resources to keep prisoners busy for the extra time that they are out of their cells. The additional boredom combined with increased access to other prisoners leads to gangland cultures and no-go areas within prisons as there are not enough staff to run those parts of the prison.
Prison officers and staff have to deal with those conditions. The removal of the right to take industrial action and the right to negotiate pay and conditions will lead to a breakdown of morale and discipline within the prison service, as the only safety valve for prison officers to highlight dangerous and degrading con-ditions will disappear. It will lead to more wildcat strikes by individuals who, by not acting collectively —that is the point—will not break the law. The Bill only makes it illegal to induce a prison officer to contravene Clause 122. In other words, there is a direct prohibition on collective union action and that will make managing the prison more difficult.
Lord Justice Woolf acknowledged that poor industrial relations lead to poor staff-prisoner relation-ships. Therefore it is necessary that industrial relations are normalised in so far as they reasonably can be. That will not be done by removing rights which exist for other employees in other situations. As I said in Committee, prison officers do a necessary job, which many of us would not relish doing. Since they act on our behalf, it is up to us through Parliament to see that their conditions are normalised so far as possible. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry; My Lords, as I explained when I spoke to the previous amendment, the purpose of Clause 121 is to improve the position of prison officers in England and Wales. The present position, as has been held by the courts, is that prison officers do not have the right to strike or indeed any of the other rights under employment legislation. Clause 121 improves their position.
The three clauses—Clauses 121 to 123—have to be seen in some sense as a unit. They are designed to give an overall, coherent policy to improve the position of prison officers in England and Wales by giving them protection which they do not have. Nonetheless they make clear that prison officers do not have the right to strike and that if a person contravenes the subsection by inducing a prison officer to withhold his services or commit a breach of discipline, he falls within the provisions of Clause 122.
1614
The purpose of that clause is to make sure that prison officers do not withdraw their services. Therefore they are in a position analogous to those in the police and the army, who are in a similar position. That is because of the importance of the kind of services which are rendered by members of those services. We recognise that.
The noble Baroness referred to various problems in relation to prisons and prison populations. That only underlines the importance of the work done by prison officers, which we fully acknowledge. It is also all the clearer that, if they were permitted to withdraw their services, it could lead to acute and indeed grave positions. There was a burst of industrial action in 1986 and at that time there were serious disturbances among inmates, including disturbances leading in one prison to destruction of property valued at millions of pounds. We are therefore dealing with a different and specific kind of situation. We believe that in that situation the provisions of Clause 122 are fully justified. They are balanced by the provisions of Clause 123 which provides for the Secretary of State to make regulation providing for the establishment, maintenance and operation of procedures for determining rates of pay and so forth relating to prison officers. For that reason we see all the clauses as being interrelated; as forming an important package which will put employment for prison officers on a proper footing. For those reasons I resist the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sorry to learn from the Minister that the Government are not prepared to move on the issue. It will be recalled—in fact, I mentioned it in my opening remarks —that we attempted to meet the Government's position to some degree by limiting the industrial action that we proposed to matters concerned with the health and safety of prison officers. But the Minister at that stage was not prepared to accept it. For that reason I came back at Report stage with an attempt to put on record at least our view that prison officers were entitled to the same rights as other employees; that is, the ultimate sanction if need be to withdraw labour. As I indicated earlier, these are not people who are normally militant. However, they are occasionally put under great pressure, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate. Therefore, to have a situation in which at least it is known that the ultimate sanction is available is much more of a safety valve than perhaps it would be in other situations.
I note that the Minister believes that there is a coherent whole in the clauses. I shall say something about that when speaking to the next amendment. He said also that it is not felt that with this kind of service it is appropriate that there should be a right of collective action. I am sure that the prison officers will not see it that way and I can only hope that when the clauses are in operation they work effectively. Perhaps they will if there is a real attempt to deal with overcrowding and with some of the conditions in prisons that are responsible for the kinds of tension to which I referred in my opening remarks. I have some doubt about that, but there is no point in attempting to divide the House at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 123 [Pay and related conditions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 97, line 12, at end insert:
("(1A) Procedures established under subsection (1) above shall include the establishment of a Prison Service Arbitration Board, which shall make binding decisions on matters falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above in the event of a failure to agree between representatives of persons working in the prison service and the Secretary of State on those matters.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 134 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 135 with which it is grouped, although they are not all that similar. We discussed the right of prison officers to take industrial action. Not surprisingly I was unable to change the Government's mind. However, Amendment No. 134 seeks to introduce a system of arbitration for the pay and conditions negotiations established under the clause. It attempts to provide some recompense for the loss of the right of industrial action.
The Government say that Clause 123 is designed in part to compensate for the removal of the right to collective industrial action by recognising that the bargaining power of the employees' representatives has been greatly reduced. But as the clause now stands it gives the Secretary of State virtually complete power in determining the establishment of any pay and conditions procedures. The Bill only provides that the unions are consulted. That implies a more passive role than if the Bill had required negotiation with the representatives of those working in the prison service.
The Bill seeks to replace a system of negotiation with one of consultation. But of course the Secretary of State does not have to take any notice of the advice he receives in the consultation process. Negotiation, however, gives the employee representatives a more active role. It is vital that the views of the employees —in this case prison officers—are taken seriously. This Bill does not do that.
The pressure from the private sector that has been introduced by the Home Secretary will possibly tempt him to try to drive down the wages of prison staff. An independent arbitration system would provide some restraint. The Edmund-Davies Report into the police pay and negotiating machinery recognised that point when it examined the question of pay in relation to the police and not having the right of industrial action. The Committee said:
"In common with all those who submitted evidence for our consideration, this Committee is satisfied that the absence of the right to strike is a serious deprivation for any worker. It is essential that the police should not suffer in pay because they are deprived of the right to strike, and it should be put beyond doubt that they are being paid fairly".
If that is true for the police it is surely true also for the prison staff. It is a dangerous occupation. Prisoners are among the most dangerous people in our society. For the sake of the safety of the rest of us, they are locked up and prison staff appointed to ensure that that is so. The safety of prison staff is constantly at risk. My earlier amendment opposed the removal of the right to collective action because, among other things, the threat to prison staff has increased. This clause in no way
1616
replaces the loss, nor does it provide real compensation for it. That is why I am proposing in this amendment an independent form of arbitration. Without such a provision the Secretary of State would have absolute power in regard to wages and conditions.
The Bill does not even guarantee a form of machinery that would allow negotiations at a later stage. We believe that there is considerable merit in having am independent body to which either side can refer a matter in dispute. That body can listen to the representations made by the organisations involved. Both the unions and the prison department could present their case. All sides would believe that they were getting a fair hearing. The result of the arbitration would receive much greater acceptance on all sides.
The experience of arbitration in pay and conditions negotiations in other sectors has been positive. Arbitration is a well-established system that has been used for the police since it was introduced by the Police Act 1964. Why have the Government not sought to include similar provisions in this Bill fot prison staff? The use of arbitration within the police pay and negotiations system has worked for 30 years and was confirmed by this Government more recently in Section 2 of the Police Negotiating Board Act. These measures are enshrined in primary legislation.
I myself have some experience of arbitration although not for the police service. I was for many years a member of the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC). I believe that arbitration as a system has a great deal of merit. In my experience the parties concerned invariably accept with a very good grace the decisions which are reached. I am sure that on the CAC we were often instrumental in defusing some difficult situations.
Prison officers are already feeling disoriented and upset by this Bill. They are worried about what the future may hold for them. If the Government were to accept this amendment —perhaps not this wording but at least in principle—it would do a great deal to allay the fears that have been expressed.
I turn now to Amendment No. 135 with which Amendment No. 134 is grouped. Amendment No. 135 is a small amendment. Again, it is introduced to try to allay the fears and suspicions of prison staff as represented by the Prison Officers' Association. The clause in the Bill as it stands reads,
"Before making any regulations … the Secretary of Suite shall consult with such organisations appearing to him"—
I emphasise that—
"to be representative of persons working in the prison service and with such other persons as he thinks fit".
I do not quarrel with the latter part of the clause. Plainly, he should,
"consult with … such other persons as he thinks fit".
But the words "appearing to him" in the part of the clause referring to,
"organisations … representative of persons working in the prison service"
made me in particular feel slightly suspicious. Organisations are either representative of people working in the prison service or they are not.
The clause as it stands would appear to give the Secretary of State the right to consult organisations that appeared to him to be representative. But supposing that

1617
he had a row with the Prison Officers' Association and supposing that another organisation was formed -perhaps a breakaway; such things have happened -could he then decide to consult only the breakaway and not the main organisation on the grounds that it appeared to him that the breakaway was more "representative"? I am not saying that that would happen immediately or even with the present Secretary of State. I do not think that it would. But we are creating legislation here that may be on the statute book for a long time. It seems to me that it would be more appropriate simply to say in the Bill, "The Secretary of State shall consult with organisations representative of persons working in the prison service". That is clearer and it is unequivocal. Everybody knows what it means. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has just said. I have spoken in this House on many occasions in the past 10 years on the subject of industrial relations in the Prison Service. The one point on which I differ from the noble Baroness is her account of what industrial relations in the Prison Service were really like. Frankly, they were appalling. That was indicated in the report of Sir John May, and the report of Lord Justice Woolf indicated that there had been a further deterioration. I am not trying to apportion blame here; I am merely stating a fact. At a lecture that I was invited to give at the prison service staff college, I said that I did not believe that that situation could continue because no government would accept it in the long term. We have therefore reached the sad situation that we are debating today.
Having said that, the point on which I wholly agree with the noble Baroness is that it is essential to have some form of independent arbitration system. There is an analogy with the police—largely because it is unlawful for a police officer to take industrial action, as will now be the case for a prison officer. However, the police are essentially a local government service whereas we are now talking about people who are directly employed by the Crown. Nevertheless, although it will be unlawful for a prison officer to take industrial action, I very much hope that the Government recognise that there is a real danger of a festering sense of injustice developing if the Government misuse the power that they now possess. You cannot possibly run a sensible, civilised prison service unless that is recognised.
As I have argued privately in the past, it is highly desirable to have some form of independent tribunal making judgments or recommendations on prison service pay. I do not think that we can have the very unattractive combination of absolute power for Ministers with the same Ministers determining the pay and conditions of their staff. There has to be an independent system. I very much hope that the Minister will say that the Government's mind is still open on this issue.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the second of these two amendments is perhaps relatively minor by comparison. Its purpose is to state that it it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to consult people who appear to him, in his judgment, to be representative of persons working in the Prison Service. If that judgment were reached on grounds which were perverse—using the word in its broad sense and not giving it its full legal context—it could nowadays be subject to judicial review. Therefore there is not, as there may have been a decade or more ago, a fear that that could be used in an uncontrolled way. It means that he has to make a judgment and consult the people who appear to him to be representative of the prison service. Provided that that is a genuine judgment, that is all right.
The other point of course goes wider. The amendment seeks, in one sense, to pre-empt in part the result of the very process of consultation for which the clause makes provision. The clause provides that,
'The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment … of procedures".
Subsection (4) states what the regulations may provide.
Subsection (2) provides that before making the regulations the Secretary of State is to consult. There would be no sense in having a consultation process if the outcome of that consultation process and the process of considering the procedures were pre-determined. Therefore I reject the idea that a procedure of the kind envisaged here is one at which the consultation process and the Secretary of State's consideration would inevitably arrive.
It is of course appropriate for the Secretary of State, having consulted, to consider what should be the appropriate mechanisms. Your Lordships will appre-ciate that the provision will cover different kinds of people who are officers within the meaning of the provision. It does not necessarily follow that the mechanism will be the same for all the kinds of people concerned. Some grades may prefer one mechanism and others another.
As I say, we cannot predict what will be the outcome of the procedure. I observe merely that, contrary to what I think was indicated by the noble Baroness, although there is an arbitration system for the police there is no system of binding arbitration, which is what the amendment would provide. Some people criticise the system in the case of the police because it does not provide for binding arbitration. The amendment would go further than what is available for the police at the moment. I accept that it is important that the procedures arrived at here are ones which command a good measure of consent. We hope obviously that to a large extent they can be arrived at by agreement. The whole point of the clause is that it envisages a process of consultation before the appropriate procedures are put in place. We cannot accept that that should be pre-empted in the way envisaged by the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he confirm that the Government's mind is not closed on the subject of

1619
arbitration, and that they are willing to consider a form of arbitration should that emerge as a result of the consultation process?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as I have said, it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to have made up his mind about what would be appropriate even before the legislation is enacted. All I say is that what the noble Baroness was suggesting was a form of arbitration which went further than is the position for the police at the moment. I cannot go any further than that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not answered the question. Whatever may in law be right or wrong, we all know perfectly well that the Secretary of State has of course decided how he will approach the legislation. Having served in the Home Office, I am well aware of how Ministers respond. What the noble Baroness asked was whether the Government had decided finally not to accept any form of independent arbitration. I should be extremely grateful if we could have an answer to that question.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I adhere to the position that it would be wrong to anticipate Parliament's view on these matters. I am sure that that would have been wrong even in the noble Lord's time at the Home Office. However, we have not finalised a view and it follows that we have not ruled out a form of arbitration. That is one of the possibilities which will enter the final outcome of any consultation. At the end of the day, the consultation takes place and then the Secretary of State makes up his mind.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I note what the Minister said and I am grateful for his final comments. At least prison officers will be aware that their request for an independent form of assessment of wages and conditions will be taken seriously by the Government.
In response to Amendment No. 135, the Minister indicated that a perverse decision by the Secretary of State as to the organisations which he did or did not consult would be open to judicial review. Of course, I am aware of that. However, it is a somewhat lengthy process and a rather expensive one. I believe that it would have been more sensible to have accepted my amendments and included a clause providing that the Secretary of State shall consult organisations which are representative of people working in the prison service.
I note the views that have been expressed tonight. I am grateful for the acceptance that independent arbitration has not been ruled out and that there will be consultation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Clause 131 [Execution of warrants]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 103, leave out lines 33 to 45 and insert: ("( ) A person arrested in pursuance of a warrant shall be taken, as soon as reasonably practicable, to any place to which he is committed by, or may be conveyed under, the warrant.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 135B, 136 and 137. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 135B:
Page 104, line 17, leave out ("of detention and return of sentence") and insert ("to imprison (or to apprehend and imprison)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Aid of one police force by another]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 110, line 15, leave out ("demands") and insert ("demand").
Page 110, line 25, leave out ("demands") and insert ("demand").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 137A:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
("Sexual offences: rape Rape of women and men
. For section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape of a woman) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Rape of woman or man.
1.—(1) It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man.
(2) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and

(b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it

(3) A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.
(4) Subsection (2) applies for the purpose of any enactment." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 126B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 137B:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
("Sexual offences: revised penalties
Sexual offences: revised penalties

.—(1) The following paragraphs of the Second Schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (which prescribe the punishments for offences of buggery and of indecency between men) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) (buggery), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "If with a person under the age of sixteen or with an animal, life; otherwise two years."; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b) (attempted buggery), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted "If with a person under the age of sixteen or with an animal, life; otherwise two years.".

(3) In paragraph 16—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) (indecency between men), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted 'Two years."; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b) (attempted procurement of commission by a man of an act of gross indecency with another man), for the entry in the third column there shall be substituted 'Two years.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 193A is consequential on this amendment. My second sequence of amendments is broadly consequential on the amendments in respect of rape, which we discussed earlier. The purpose is to tidy up the law relating to penalties where buggery would remain an offence but would not be rape.
This sequence of amendments also relates to Amendment No. 137C in the name of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, on heterosexual buggery. If that amendment is agreed to by your Lordships there will need to be a penalty for those instances of heterosexual buggery which remain an offence. At the same time, I seek in these amendments to reform the scale of penalties for gross indecency and to bring them into line.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships by going through a complex situation in too much detail. However, I am afraid that some detail is unavoidable. First, I deal with the law as it is. These amendments do not seek to change that. They do not seek to change any penalty involving sex with either a boy or a girl under the age of 16. That age is the most significant watershed in relation to the offences. Buggery with someone under that age carries a sentence of life imprisonment. I remind your Lordships of the offence of indecent assault which carries a maximum of 10 years where unwelcome sexual advances short of rape have been made on either a woman or a man or where a boy or a girl under 16 cannot in law have been held to have consented to the act in question.
However, the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16 carries a maximum sentence of two years. All that being so, my amendments deal in practice with instances of consensual sex in one of two classes of case: either— and this is clearly the most serious case—where one or both of the parties are under age but over 16; or else, where the sex takes place in unlawful circumstances. That would most notably be in public. Therefore, in the latter case, we are dealing as much with a public decency offence as with a sexual offence.
At present, consensual gross indecency or buggery between a man over 21 and a young man under 21 but over 16 carries a penalty of five years. Where both men are under 21, the penalty is two years. Where both men are over 21, the penalty is also two years.
My approach is simple. I seek merely to impose a penalty of two years across the board. That would apply in the case of consensual buggery with a girl aged between 16 and 18, if my noble friend's amendment is accepted. I suggest to your Lordships that that is not much of a change. I considered making the five year penalty apply where there is consensual sex between someone over 18 and someone under 18 but that would have the curious effect of actually increasing the present penalty in the case of some homosexual men, where someone between the ages of 18 and 21 has sex with someone aged 16 or 17. My standard has been the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16. I cannot see that a higher penalty should apply to an older age group. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has steered us extremely lucidly through this labyrinth, as he did in Committee. Again, as on the previous amendment in relation to male rape, he has all the arguments on his side.
I understand that some help has been given with drafting the amendment. I hope that the Government will look upon it with the same munificence with which they regarded the noble Lord's previous amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in Committee I said that we should hesitate to do away altogether with the current five-year maximum penalty for consensual homosexual acts between an older and a younger man; for example, where the younger man was still under the new age of consent. However, I do not dispute that the change in the age of consent for homosexuals makes desirable some change in the penalties.
I believe that we should consider circumstances in which the consent of the younger person may, in some sense, be tainted. For example, I am thinking of a case in which an older man may abuse a position of authority to obtain sexual favours from an adolescent in his care. That can be especially dangerous and wicked in a residential setting where a disadvantaged or inadequate young man may find himself to be the prey of an older man who has sought employment there only to indulge his sexual preferences.
In those circumstances, it may be impossible to prove an absence of consent but Parliament has decided in the course of the Bill that young men of 16 and 17 years of age need a special protection from homosexual advances. Thankfully, that sort of thing does not happen very often in those circumstances; but a maximum penalty of two years may not be sufficient where it does happen.
Therefore, I should be hesitant to accept the amendment but I should like to consider the matter further before Third Reading in the hope that it may be possible to produce another proposal for your Lordships to consider. I hope on that basis the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment, at least for the time being.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I have a question to put to the Minister before he sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, responds. In the light of his final remarks, will the noble Earl consider looking at some of the continental arrangements whereby the sort of undesirable consequences about which he talked are taken care of by a differential age where people are in a position of special responsibility or trust vis-a-vis a younger person?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not too familiar with what happens on the Continent; indeed, I am not all that familiar with what happens here in that respect. However, I shall certainly see that the point is considered along with the main substance of the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will forgive me if I say that I am slightly surprised by his response. He will know that I received the greatest co-operation from his office in the drafting of the amendments. However, I believe that I understand the noble Earl's anxiety. There may be a small number of cases where a young man under 18 but over 16 may be inveigled into having a sexual relationship with an older man by undue influence, but where neither rape nor indecent assault can be charged because the younger man could be held to have consented. As I understand it, that is the Minister's argument. Indeed, he mentioned the instance of young men who are held in care. It seems to me that there should be a substantial penalty in that respect.
However, by and large, we are dealing with a category of offences which are public order offences —that is, offences that are serious but which are not the terrible breach of trust suggested by the Minister. It is the peculiar structure of the law on homosexual acts which lumps those in with the cases of under-age sex across age barriers.
To see the real problem, I believe that we need to look at the actual offences. I have with me some figures regarding convictions for gross indecency which have been taken from Home Office replies to Questions. In the years 1990–92, there were 577 convictions for gross indecency, 154 of which involved a male over 21 with a male under 21. However, there were only eight sentences of immediate custody for them, six of which related to a case of a man over 21 with a man under 21 —and one was himself under 21. But—and this is the significant point—only 12 of the those 154 offences related to age-of-consent offences as such; that is, where the act was in private.
In short, I suggest that this is overwhelmingly a public order offence. At the risk of giving a hostage to fortune, I see no real reason why a 16-year old should be treated more leniently in the context of public order than a 21-year old. I certainly see no instance where a maximum penalty of more than two years would be appropriate.
I hope that the noble Earl will be able to find a way of separating the very few hard cases to which he referred from the generality. I should be interested to hear of a case where a higher sentence than two years has in fact been imposed under the present law. I believe that that would prove that there is a real evil to remedy.
I repeat my earlier point. I cannot see why we have to protect young men of 16 and 17 by a higher penalty than the one with which we protect young girls of 13 to If the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu is passed, we will need to decide on a penalty for consensual buggery with a girl of 16 or I can see no need for a different penalty in that respect. I also see no need for a different penalty from that which applies in Scotland where I believe there is a two-year sentence across the board. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 137C:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
("Sexual offences: male rape and buggery
Male rape and buggery

(1) Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (offence of buggery) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after the words "another person" there shall be inserted the words "otherwise than in lawful circumstances".

(3) After subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(1A) An act of buggery takes place in lawful circumstances if it takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of eighteen.

(1B) An act of buggery by a man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place—

(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or

(b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise."").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I tabled an amendment to decriminalise buggery when it takes place between an adult man and an adult woman in private and when both consent. That amendment drew support from noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber for which I was most grateful Many others who did not speak in the debate have expressed their support to me in the interim period. On that occasion, the noble Earl said that he wished to consider what had been said, so I withdrew the amendment and said that I would return to the matter on Report.
The amendment which I move this evening looks rather different. I should explain that I have received the helpful advice of the noble Earl's office and of the parliamentary draftsman for which I am also grateful. But its effect is intended to be the same as the original. I hope the House will permit me briefly to explain the provisions and the effect of this amendment.
Under the law at present, anal sexual intercourse between an adult man and an adult woman conducted in private, even where both consent, is illegal. That this far from uncommon activity is a crime astonishes many members of the general public and further dumbfounds them when they learn, additionally, that the offence presently carries a maximum penalty of life imprison-ment. In most cases, of course, no one complains. No one outside the couple concerned knows so the law is not involved, but there are exceptions.
A complaint is sometimes made by a woman following the breakdown of a relationship or a marriage that she has been the victim of violence, or rape or sometimes buggery. It is in those circumstances that a trial sometimes follows at which the man admits buggery but claims that the woman consented. If he goes on to fight the case, the jury are told by the judge that they have no alternative but to find him guilty because consent is no defence. If he is found guilty, or pleads guilty to buggery, the question of whether or not the woman consented is for the judge alone to decide, not the jury. It is purely a question of mitigation.
Where the judge decides the woman did not consent, a sentence—as the noble Earl has already said in answer to one of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—of some years imprisonment is imposed, akin to a sentence in a rape case. But where the judge decides the woman consented, or may have consented, the Encyclopaedia of Sentencing, which supplies precedents to judges and contains the guideline cases to

1625
which judges must have regard, indicates that for consensual buggery between an adult man and an adult woman in private the appropriate sentence is an immediate custodial sentence of three months. From experience as a barrister I know that such sentences are indeed imposed.
A great deal has been said in this House during the passage of this Bill, and elsewhere too, about the need for equality between the sexes. It cannot, I believe, be right for a form of private sexual behaviour to which both parties consent to be legitimate when it takes place between two men but to attract an immediate prison sentence when it concerns a man and a woman. The idea of anal sexual intercourse is, I suspect, repugnant to many people, perhaps a majority, and if this amendment is accepted people who feel that way will no doubt continue to feel just the same. The health risks of this type of intercourse are well known and are likely to be a deterrent in themselves, and that too would not change. But I hope that the proposed change in the law would have a number of real benefits. It would remove a bar to those who may be in need of medical advice or treatment but who are afraid to seek it and thus admit to a serious criminal offence and risk the possible prosecution as a result. It would remove an almost wholly unenforceable, anachronistic and inequitable piece of legislation with draconian penalties from the overloaded statute book.
The reasons why Parliament failed to alter the law in this respect back in 1967 when similar activity for adult men was legalised are unclear. Embarrassment and unwillingness to accept that such behaviour can be consensual, distaste and even perhaps indifference, I suspect all played a part. So people have continued to be sent to prison for heterosexual consensual buggery for nearly 30 years after consensual homosexual buggery was legalised.
I hope that the Minister will feel, after reflection, that he can accept this amendment. For far too long the long arm of the law has been allowed to reach behind the bedroom door to wave the finger of disapproval at adult men and women engaged in private sexual activity of this kind and indeed to lock some of them up. It is about time that not only adult men but adult women too should be able to close the bedroom door firmly in the face of the law in these circumstances and tell it to mind its own business. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made an unanswerable case. I hope very much that on the basis of what she said the Government will accept the amendment. It would be an absurdity to say that if two men become involved in activities of this sort it is not a crime but if a man and a woman indulge in precisely the same conduct it is a crime. I hope that the noble Earl will accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, invariably invites me to accept an amendment. I do not always do so. I said in Committee that I would consider carefully the arguments put
1626
forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Indeed, I have spent a good deal of my time since Committee considering her arguments on one matter or another with regard to the Bill.
I have already explained how our reluctance to see the Bill diverted into a sexual offences Bill has caused us to approach matters of this kind with some caution. However, there is no doubt that many people are surprised to discover that the law forbids any consensual heterosexual buggery, whatever the circumstances. I would not wish to suggest that this practice is common, although the noble Baroness says that it is a good deal more common than one might suspect. I have no idea, thank heavens, and no way of knowing whether it is a common practice. However, it seems obvious that this offence is unenforceable.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee called for a change in the law in 1984, and it has been a lack of opportunity to debate the issue rather than any objection of principle which has prevented Parliament doing anything about it earlier. This is a matter relating to the private sexual activity of consenting adults. Although the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says he hopes that the Government will accept the amendment, I should tell your Lordships that for that reason it is a matter which should be the subject of noble Lords' individual opinions. In the Government's view it is a matter which should be the subject of a free vote of your Lordships.
For my part, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has tabled a sensible amendment to which I should be happy to give my approval.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am most grateful both to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for what they have said. I am also particularly grateful for the assistance that I have had with the amendment from the staff in the noble Earl's office. In the light of what has been said by those who have chosen to speak I urge the House to accept that this is a small but important amendment and a step in a sensible direction. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 138 to 141 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 142:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("The Parole Board
Incorporation of the Parole Board
. In section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (which provides the constitution and basic functions of the Parole Board), for subsection (1), there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) The Parole Board shall be, by that name, a body corporate and as such shall be constituted in accordance with, and have the functions conferred by, this Part."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 142 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 188. These amendments are intended to give the Parole Board full non-departmental public body status. Similar amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Windlesham were agreed to in principle by

1627
the Government, and I offered to bring forward the appropriate amendments at Report stage. These are they.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who is unavoidably away from your Lordships' House this evening, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the positive response to his amendments at the previous stage of the Bill.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Parole Board. I am most grateful to the Government for their positive response to what, in effect, were probing amendments by my noble friend. The amendments which my noble friend Lord Ferrers proposes are in line with the additional responsibilities placed on the Parole Board by the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 143:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
Powers to recall prisoners released on licence
(". In section 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power by order to transfer certain functions to the Parole Board) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect and, in subsection (1), for the words "(2) to (4)" there shall be substituted the words "(2) or (3)".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 143 and speak to Amendments Nos. 176, 203, 205 and 211.
These amendments make changes to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 concerning the recall to custody of those persons on parole. Similar amendments were tabled at the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Windlesham which the Government agreed to in principle and I offered to table appropriate amendments at the Report stage. This we have now done.
Where offenders misbehave while on parole, there is a discretion to revoke their licence and to recall them to prison. Sometimes this can happen in an emergency and it is therefore essential, in order to protect the safety of the public, that the procedures should be straightforward.
Until recently, outside office hours, decisions to recall those on parole were taken by officials on behalf of the Home Secretary. But because of the construction of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, two systems of recall are now running in parallel: one by the Parole Board and the other by the Home Secretary.
This causes confusion to the police and probation service and, in an emergency, valuable time can be lost. This can jeopardise the safety of the public and therefore must be changed.
To simplify procedures, only one system of recall should operate and it has been agreed with the Parole Board that it should rest with the Home Secretary. But the board will continue to review decisions to recall those on parole. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendment. It does not remove any power or responsibility from the Parole Board but puts the procedures for the recall of prisoners, in particular emergency recalls, on to a good footing.
I do not ask the noble Earl a question, but express the hope that when the commencement provisions are brought into effect by Clause 159 of the Bill, this

1628
government amendment —it is most welcome so far as concerns the Parole Board—will be brought into effect immediately.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 144A:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
( "Body to investigate miscarriages of justice
(1) The Secretary of State shall within one month of the date of Royal Assent of this Act lay before both Houses of Parliament a report describing what plans he has to set up an independent body to investigate alleged miscarriages of criminal justice in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the timetable within which he proposes to do so.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Second Reading of the Bill, I spoke in a spirit of congratulation to the Government about the consultation document which they issued in April of this year about the criminal cases review authority. It is well known that on these Benches we regret the extent to which the Bill—it had been heralded as a Bill to deal with miscarriages of justice —failed to deal with what to us was one of the central recommendations of the Runciman Royal Commission: that there should be established an independent criminal cases review authority. We had contemplated tabling amendments to the Bill to provide for the introduction of such an authority, if necessary on a non-statutory basis. We were disarmed by the consultation document, the White Paper published in April of this year. It seemed to us an excellent statement of the issues which the Runciman Royal Commission had brought forward and to cover the quite complicated issues. We recognise the difficulty of bringing forward legislation on matters such as those raised by the establishment of an independent criminal cases review authority. Our hopes were buoyed up by the thought that, the Government having published this White Paper, and having set a reasonable period—it was reasonably short and reasonably long—for consultation, they might proceed to legislation in the 1994-95 Session.
At the time I discussed the matter with the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. He was so pleased with the White Paper—as I was—that he said he would not be submitting formal evidence to the Government about the White Paper because he felt the issues had been adequately canvassed. Imagine our disappointment, then, when we had press reports—and they are bound to be only press reports because no one will commit the Government to any particular item of legislation in the next Session—that the setting up of the criminal cases review authority, or rather legislation to provide for its setting up, could not be introduced in the Session of 1994–95; it would be delayed until the following Session.
It was not only we who felt this sense of disappointment. The Lord Chief Justice made a speech to the Lord Mayor's dinner for judges on Wednesday 6th July, last week. I do not need his authority to quote it because it is a public matter, but I have talked to him about it. He said:
"I have supported the Government's view that solving the practical problems and working out the details of these proposals"—
that is the Royal Commission's detailed package of recommendations—
"made it impossible for them to be included in the Criminal Justice Bill presently before Parliament. The same applies to the Commission's proposal of a new Review Authority to examine alleged miscarriages of justice. But I regard it as of the greatest importance that these provisions be enacted in the next session of Parliament. They should not be further postponed and I trust the Government will give them high priority in their programme for legislation".
We ask no more than that. The device of asking for a report from the Secretary of State within a month of Royal Assent is not intended as an amendment on which we would seek to divide the House. It is intended first to express our support for the Lord Chief Justice's view of how important it is that the criminal cases review authority should be included in legislation in the next Session.
Having consulted my honourable friends in another place, I am authorised to say to the Government, if it is any help to them in making final decisions about what legislation shall be brought forward, that provided, of course, that the legislation follows the thrust of the consultation document and subject to the fact that there are different options proposed in that consultation document—and we may not always agree about each of the options that the Government finally choose—it certainly is the Opposition's view that in both Houses we will give a fair wind to legislation to achieve that objective.
I hope that that will be helpful as a public statement of the position of the Labour Party in support of the criminal cases review authority which we consider to be central to the implementation of the report of the Royal Commission. We very much hope that time will be found for it in the Session of 1994–95. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said. I find it mildly surprising that we are having to say it at all. Just as the Lord Chief Justice indicated his concern in the matter only last week, it is right that we should register our concern today. After all, why was the recent Royal Commission set up? It was set up because of alleged miscarriages of justice, and it became clear that they were miscarriages of justice.
The recommendation of the Royal Commission was that such an authority should be set up. The Government have published their consultation paper and we welcome it. But it would, in my view, be quite deplorable were we not to have such a Bill introduced in the next Session of Parliament. I hope that the noble Earl will not say: "I cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech"—that favourite line which one has heard from different governments over many years. The fact is that there is now a serious expectation in Parliament that this legislation will receive priority. The amount of legislation put before this House at the beginning of a Session of Parliament tends to be rather limited in its scope. There was a substantial exception in the present Session, but normally the situation is that most significant Bills are introduced in the House of Commons rather than here. Given that fact, this seems to me to be just the sort of legislation that could be
1630
introduced in this House after the Queen's Speech. I very much hope that that will be done. The noble Earl should have no doubt, if in fact that is not done, that the Government will, in my view deservedly, come in for the most severe criticism.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the amendment contem-plates a single review authority to examine alleged miscarriages throughout the United Kingdom and to refer appropriate cases to the court. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary whichever jurisdiction one considers, although I realise that it is merely a device to enable us to discuss the subject matter.
Perhaps I may take first the position that the Government propose in England and Wales, where we have already made clear what we intend to do. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last October that the Government had accepted the Royal Commission's recommendation that his powers to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice and to refer appropriate cases to the Court of Appeal should be removed and a new authority—a criminal cases review authority—which would be independent of both government and the courts should be set up to undertake those functions in his place.
A discussion paper setting out the Government's proposals in detail was issued last March. That paper invited comments on what was proposed. I know that many noble Lords have seen the paper; indeed, some noble Lords have responded to it either individually or through an organisation with which they are connected. We have received a lot of very helpful and constructive responses to the discussion paper. Those are currently being considered with a view to decisions being made on the final shape of the new arrangements.
I fully understand the desire that has been expressed this evening in this House and which has been expressed in another place, as well as those views that have been expressed outside Parliament, that the new authority should be set up as quickly as possible. However, what we envisage amounts to quite a major constitutional change. Whatever new arrangements are put in place, we must fully think them out and ensure that they are soundly based. They must command the confidence of those who look to the new authority for assistance. They must command the confidence of practitioners in this area of the criminal justice system; and they must command the confidence of the public. It is vital that we should get matters right. That is why we have not attempted to include provisions to establish the proposed authority in this Bill but have consulted instead on the detailed proposals.
I know that there have been some recent speculative press articles. But your Lordships will know—even though the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not like me to remind him—that I cannot speculate on the content of the legislative programme for next Session. What I can say, though, is that the Government remain fully committed to setting up the proposed authority for England and Wales and that we hope to bring forward legislation to establish it as soon as practicable.

1631
With regard to Scotland, although the remit of the Royal Commission did not extend to Scotland noble Lords will recall that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland undertook to consider the implications of its recommendations for the Scottish criminal justice system. In a consultation paper of February this year the Secretary of State for Scotland sought views on options for change to the procedures and the jurisdiction for considering alleged miscarriages of justice. Those procedures are broadly the same as those which apply at present in England and Wales.
I understand that the consultation exercise did not produce any widespread support for any change to the present arrangements in Scotland, notwithstanding the Government's intention to establish a criminal cases review authority in England and Wales. As a result, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated in his White Paper, published on 27th June, that for the time being he will continue to exercise his powers to refer cases to the Appeal Court in Scotland in considering petitions which allege miscarriages of justice.
The Government do not rule out the possibility of change in this area in Scotland. The White Paper also announced that further consideration of the issues was required and that the Government intended to appoint an independent committee to look at them and the related issue of the consideration of appeals by the Appeal Court in Scotland in detail. An announcement will be made shortly on the membership and the remit of the committee. But we intend that it should include a member of the senior judiciary and others with knowledge and experience of the Scottish criminal justice law.
With regard to the position in Northern Ireland, many noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has also considered the implications of the Royal Commission's recommendations for the criminal justice system there. My right honourable friend issued at the beginning of June his own discussion paper Criminal Appeals and Arrangements for dealing with Alleged Miscarriages of Justice in Northern Ireland. The paper seeks public comments by 15th July. It canvasses a range of possible new arrangements for Northern Ireland. I understand that my right honourable friend intends to decide what future arrangements should be made in Northern Ireland in the light of the responses to the paper.
1632
I hope that what I have said tonight will reassure noble Lords that we are firmly committed to establishing the new criminal cases review authority for England and Wales. But of course I cannot anticipate what will be in the Queen's Speech.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I could not have expected the Minister to go further than he hats done so far as concerns England and Wales. I am disappointed—and it shows my ignorance, for which I am culpable—as to his responses for Scotland and Northern Ireland. I should have known of those consultation documents and that it was the position of the Secretaries of State concerned that there was not perhaps the same urgency as there is thought to be in England and Wales.
I am particularly disappointed in what I heard about the thinking of the Secretary of State for Scotland. As my amendment makes clear, it is important that similar bodies should be set up for the whole of the United Kingdom. In the end it would be an absurdity if the Home Office were to divest itself of this onerous and not always very well conducted task to an independent body, as has been accepted by the Home Secretary, only to find that the Secretary of State for Scotland retained the same powers.
I believe that the Minister understands very well what we are trying to do with the amendment. We did not expect a commitment. We are saying to the Minister, "Here he is. With admirable fortitude he has dealt with three heavily contested Bills this Session. Next Session, would he not like a Bill on which we are all working together with the same objective?" I hope that he will be tempted by that prospect. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: WASHINGTON ACCORD
  BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: WASHINGTON ACCORD
  BOSNIA: ALLEGED USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  BOSNIA: ALLEGED USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
  AFGHANISTAN: UN SPECIAL MISSION REPORT
  AFGHANISTAN: UN SPECIAL MISSION REPORT
  HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE, GENEVA: DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
  HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE, GENEVA: DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
  AUSTRIA: ACCESSION TO THE EU
  AUSTRIA: ACCESSION TO THE EU
  EU COUNCIL: FORTHCOMING BUSINESS
  EU COUNCIL: FORTHCOMING BUSINESS
  GAZA AND JERICHO: SUPPORT FOR PALESTINIAN ADMINISTRATION
  GAZA AND JERICHO: SUPPORT FOR PALESTINIAN ADMINISTRATION
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: REPORT
  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: REPORT
  HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION: SAFETY
  HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION: SAFETY
  WAR CRIMES ACT 1991
  WAR CRIMES ACT 1991
  CARE IN THE COMMUNITY: TRANSFER OF STAFF
  CARE IN THE COMMUNITY: TRANSFER OF STAFF
  EU CITIZENS: RIGHT TO LIVE AND WORK IN THE UK
  EU CITIZENS: RIGHT TO LIVE AND WORK IN THE UK
  NON-EU CITIZENS: EMPLOYMENT IN UK
  NON-EU CITIZENS: EMPLOYMENT IN UK
  HOMOSEXUALITY IN PRISONS
  HOMOSEXUALITY IN PRISONS
  HOUSE OF LORDS: AIR CONDITIONING
  HOUSE OF LORDS: AIR CONDITIONING