Sitting of 28 November 1994

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

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to visit north America to discuss inward investment in Wales.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): There has recently been a large mission to the United States led by the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales tourist board and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. I myself have no immediate travel plans, as I think that my presence is required in Parliament.
    Mr. Fabricant: A few weeks ago, I visited an electronics company in Maine, in the United States of America. Is my right hon. Friend aware that that company now plans to invest in south Wales? It intends to produce a new company—not just because of low inflation, sustained growth and good economic relations but because of the good labour pool that exists in south Wales.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as looking to Germany and the European Union, we should look to the United States? The Americans like doing business with us, and we like doing business with them.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. Of course we are looking to the United States, and my hon. Friend may be reassured to learn that we have been extremely successful. Between April 1983 and October 1994, we received 55 per cent. of all the money invested by overseas companies from the United States of America. We are very proud that, over many years, companies such as Ford, 3M, General Electric and British Alcan have made many substantial investments and now have many thousands of employees in Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that the benefits of inward investment from America can be destroyed when a United States company can steal 900 jobs from the Raytheon plant in my constituency? I still look to the right hon. Gentleman—I thank him for the assistance he has already given—to enable my constituents to meet the company's chairman and make their case.
    May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that Airbus announced the loss of 200 aerospace jobs in my constituency last week? I ask him to use every resource
    910
    at his disposal to ensure that our Government order the future large aircraft and that Hercules aircraft are not ordered from America.
    Mr. Redwood: First, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall use whatever powers I have to try to influence the company—even at this late stage, after it has made its decision. I shall intervene again to see whether any more can be done. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have met him, the company's work force and other hon. Members who have taken up the issue. I have assured them that I shall do all that I can to persuade Raytheon to create or maintain more jobs in Wales, where it has been well served by the work force to date and could be well served again.
    As for the other matter, the Government will make a decision when we have all the necessary information. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that his points will be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Brandreth: May I echo the question asked by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones)? This matter deserves real priority, not just in north Wales but across the border in Chester. I urge my right hon. Friend to do what he can to intervene positively in the case of Raytheon Jets and the proposed transfer to the United States of America.
    Mr. Redwood: I entirely agree. Let me repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and also pay tribute to my hon. Friend: he has been equally assiduous in pursuing the interests of his constituents and people in Wales who want such jobs.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Given that much American investment comes to Wales so that America can get a foothold in the European Union, will the Secretary of State confirm that he is a less than enthusiastic supporter of the European Communities (Finance) Bill, which will increase Britain's contribution to Europe by more than £1 billion over a period? Do the right hon. Gentlemen and his Cabinet colleagues feel any surprise at the contempt and derision in which they are held by the people of Britain, when the only way in which they can suppress their party's schizophrenia over Europe is to threaten collective suicide? Does the right hon. Gentleman draw any conclusions from the fact that, if his Government were to be defeated in the Lobbies this evening, the cheer that would go up throughout the country—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time, but we seem to be already engaging in an Adjournment debate. I want to hear brisk questions; I have a number of Back Benchers to call.
    Mr. Davies: Does the Secretary of State draw any conclusions from the fact that, if his Government were to be defeated in the Lobbies tonight, the roar that would go up would be greater than the roar that would have gone up in Cardiff on Saturday if we had beaten the Springboks?
    Mr. Redwood: The Government will win the vote tonight and the hon. Gentleman knows that well. I am proud that, when the proposals were put to him, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated down the first demands of the European Community and he reached a much better deal than that suggested by the European Commission. We accept it. I am proud that it is this Government who have campaigned against waste and

    911
    unnecessary expenditure and who, through the member states, have given new powers to the auditors to root out the fraud. I am proud that we shall unite in confidence behind the Government tonight.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he intends to take to ensure that local authorities in Wales are able to meet their financial obligations in 1995–96.
    Mr. Redwood: I shall announce my proposals for 1995–96 total standard spending and aggregate Exchequer finance for local government tomorrow after the Budget statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Michael: Does not the Secretary of State realise that we shall be looking for an assurance that he will do better next year than he did this year, when he tightened the screw so tightly on the three counties of Glamorgan that a crisis exists on the streets of south Wales, not only because of the high level of crime but because of police underfunding to the tune of about £2.5 million? Having accepted that his capping criteria apply to the police as much as to any other local government services, does he realise that it is his responsibility to put matters right? Will he agree to meet the Home Office and to find some way of putting matters right in the South Wales police area?
    Mr. Redwood: It is south Wales local government that has let the police down. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised when we introduce proposals that will do much better by the police than those introduced by local government. Since 1991–92, spending on local government has increased by about a quarter, allowing for functional changes. That is a big cash increase, giving local government plenty of scope. Its priorities, however, are not the same as those of many people in south Wales, which is why they feel let down by Labour local government.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite sound financial management, Powys county council and possibly other local authorities have had great difficulty in meeting their financial obligations in relation to care in the community? Does he further accept that the people who are most likely to suffer from that difficulty are those in the most vulnerable group, who will need some nursing care, even when the programme is complete? Will he ensure that care in the community is taken fully into account in his financial settlement for the coming year?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course, that will be taken fully into account, as it has been in recent settlements, with large increases in money from the DSS general transfer and from the general grant to reflect the personal social services element in local authority spending. I look to local government to have some discipline in that spending. The other day, I was disturbed to read a copy of a letter from Tom Davies, the director of education and cultural services for South Glamorgan county council. Written on county notepaper, it was addressed to all Labour governors and it suggested that perhaps ballots were not a good idea for grant-maintained schools.
    912
    Expenditure on that sort of thing should be stamped out and Opposition Members should get in control of their party when it goes about that sort of activity.
    Mr. Ron Davies: May I take the Secretary of State back to his earlier reply when he seemed to imply that he proposes to ring-fence police expenditure? Will he confirm that that is his intention? If it is, will he reflect on the fact that, by ring-fencing one area of expenditure, of necessity he will put a squeeze on other areas of expenditure? In the current year, care in the community has been underfunded by £38 million. That is why we have mentally ill people walking the streets. Do the Government have that sort of attitude and do they want to create that sort of society?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong again. Care in the community funding is up massively, as it should be, because it is an important new policy. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the proposals on spending generally and on the police. I still believe, however, that south Wales Labour authorities have let the police down.
    Mr. Wigley: This autumn, the Secretary of State transferred over to local government certain responsibilities in relation to loans and to some grants which were previously exercised by the Welsh Development Agency. What assurance will he give that every local authority in Wales exercising those powers will have additional money available to provide the grants, additional loan sanctions, where loans are necessary, and increased money to cover the interest on such loans? Will he give a categorical assurance that that will be the case next year, otherwise our work to attract industry will be seriously undermined?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course extra provision and extra money are being made available, as I promised the House. That will be reflected in next year's settlement in the way that the hon. Gentleman wants. During the period when we were not making payments in the mid-Wales area, unemployment fell from 6.7 per cent. in May to 6.2 per cent. in October. The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that no damage was done, but I will honour the promise that money will be made available for the grants.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I, too, have seen a copy of the letter from South Glamorgan's director of education and cultural services. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, apart from not being a legitimate expense, the action proposed by the director was to thwart parental balance for grant-maintained schools. Does my right hon. Friend think that action was right?
    Mr. Redwood: I am disturbed about a number of aspects of that letter—not least those that my right hon. Friend mentioned. I am worried that well-known Labour governors were identified and a letter circulated to them by someone who, as a director of education, should be neutral. Labour is always saying that there should not be political appointments to such bodies. Now we know that a director of education with a Labour authority is circulating a letter to Labour governors—and Labour governors alone.

    Channel Tunnel
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for passengers to and from Wales to benefit from the channel tunnel.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the channel tunnel services between the continent and locations beyond London on 14 October.
    Dr. Marek: As I thought, the Minister knows that he cannot announce any good news until the year 2004; meanwhile, the average speed of trains from Folkestone to London is 47 mph and passengers to Wales will have to change at Waterloo or face a tortuous journey around London. Can the Minister assure the House that when the new infrastructure proposals are presented at the European Union meeting in Essen in December, he will not be outsmarted by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—and that the line from London to Holyhead, which is the best route to the island of Ireland, will remain and enjoy the priority for development and electrification that it deserves?
    Mr. Jones: All main railway lines in Wales are included in the proposed trans-European network. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's negative attitude to the opportunities presented by channel tunnel services. Everyone should pull together to serve that great opportunity. I have already taken advantage of the services—when I was in Paris 10 days ago, to speak to industrialists in promoting the interests of Wales.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: In welcoming the new channel tunnel passenger service, does my hon. Friend agree that it presents a great opportunity for people from the rest of Europe who want to visit the United Kingdom to marvel at the beauty of Wales as they wend their way up the Ribble valley in north-west England?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right to promote his part of the world. In all seriousness, the west coast main line which he has in mind is very much a feature of the service to the north and mid-Wales and increasing opportunities will be taken to use it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has described the through service that will come about in a little over one year's time. We should dwell on the positive.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of a negative question asked earlier, and recognising the importance of transport communications between Wales and the island of Ireland, will the Minister confirm that he will do nothing to damage the important link between the island of Ireland and Great Britain through the port of Lame, which is the second largest roll on, roll off port in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jones: I have no intention of damaging the link to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I look forward to the greatest opportunities being taken of the opening of the channel tunnel. As to the link across north Wales, when I recently met Mr. Horton, chairman of Railtrack,
    914
    we had the opportunity to discuss improvements to be made to the Holyhead line, which should bring 90 mph running in the next two years.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the Minister take this opportunity to squash the rumour circulating throughout Wales that when the Christopherson group makes its announcement today, to be confirmed at the Essen conference in mid-December, the north Wales route will not be a priority link for electrification? We need a categorical assurance that the Welsh Office will stand up for the interests of Wales in such matters.
    Mr. Jones: I am rather surprised by that statement, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman had been on the media last Friday trying to spread that very rumour himself. I can tell him that all the main railway routes in Wales, particularly the line from Holyhead, are included in the proposed trans-European network.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales have so far applied for grant-maintained status; and what steps he is taking to encourage more schools to do so.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): Some 18 schools have applied, of which 16 have been approved. A number of measures in the Education Act 1993 make it easier for schools to become grant maintained. We have made booklets available to all schools about grant-maintained status and are providing grant aid to enable the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation to establish an office in Wales to provide information to schools.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the successes achieved by the schools that have already acquired grant-maintained status in Wales, it is very important that the Government give every possible encouragement for other schools to apply? Will he join me in condemning those Labour placemen who are appointed by Labour-controlled education authorities and who are only going through the motions of considering grant-maintained status for their schools each year, rather than making serious recommendations to the members of those schools?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Conservative Members are interested in giving choice to parents and in raising standards in education. The Opposition are interested only in political dogma, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales demonstrated a moment ago in relation to the disgraceful letter from the director of education in South Glamorgan to all Labour governors. May I remind my hon. Friend of some of the benefits of grant-maintained schools? A recent survey showed that, in 10 of the 16 grant-maintained schools in Wales, there are a greater number of pupils; in 11, there are more teachers; in 14, more money is being spent on books and equipment; and in 12, more money is being spent on music.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Can the Minister tell us, then, why less than 1 per cent. of all schools in Wales are grant maintained, despite eight years of continuous propaganda from his Department, and why in his own county the worst-performing school—by the Government's

    915
    standards—is, in fact, a grant—maintained school? If we are to regard the Welsh Office as the marketing department of Government for grant-maintained schools, with its record of the past six years, should those people not all resign or be fired?
    Mr. Richards: Well, well. I hear all about new Labour; it looks like old hat to me. Last week, when the tables for the GCSE results were announced—grant-maintained schools had done very well—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the shadow education spokesman, wished to be identified with them and said that Labour party policy would also be to publish tables. However, when the friends of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) in the National Union of Teachers heard that, they instructed their puppet in Bridgend to change the Labour party's education policy and he appeared on television and said exactly the opposite to his hon. Friend the Member for Brightside. Would an incoming Labour Government publish tables or not? Which is it?

    Adoption
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children are adopted in Wales each year.
    Mr. Richards: The number of adoption orders made in Wales by the county courts and the family proceedings courts in the years 1992 and 1993 was 709 and 620 respectively.
    Mr. Thurnham: Perhaps I should declare an interest as an adoptive parent of a boy born in Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole process of inter-country adoption should be much improved? Is he aware of the good work being done to set up the new agency, Families International, to help couples adopt from abroad and give a loving home to children who would otherwise be without a family?
    Mr. Richards: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are preparing legislation in the light of the White Paper "Adoption: the Future", published in November 1993. It is hoped to introduce legislative proposals when parliamentary time permits. Our proposals would impose a duty on local authorities to help parents seeking an overseas adoption.

    School Sport
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what extra provision he plans for school sport.
    Mr. Richards: May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the performance of his countrymen on Saturday, when they defeated Wales at the national stadium?
    The revised national curriculum will strengthen the place of sport within the curriculum. It will ensure that games are taught to all pupils of compulsory school age including, for the first time, pupils aged 14 to 16. Substantial support for the introduction of the national curriculum, including physical education, is being
    916
    provided through grants. Sport is not confined to the statutory curriculum. Good schools provide pupils with opportunities for sport outside lessons.
    Mr. Hain: I remind the Minister that my countrymen lost on Saturday, although the Wales team played very well.
    With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I shall refer briefly to the fact that one of my constituents is struggling for his life as a result of a vicious racist attack. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my request for an official inquiry into the rising tide of racist and Nazi violence in south Wales.
    The Minister speaks with a forked tongue on school sport. The Government, through the Prime Minister, apparently wish to boost school sport. However, the number of physical education teachers in Wales has been cut by 500 in recent years, as the Government's own figures show—a saving of —12 million. How can we expect to produce world-beating rugby, soccer and other sporting sides when the Government are savaging school sport, reducing teacher morale and cutting education provision? It is not possible. The Minister should respond by providing extra funding for school sport.
    Mr. Richards: We wish the hon. Gentleman's constituent well in light of the alleged attack on him.
    The hon. Gentleman should try to interpret rather more intelligently the statistics which he has been bandying around the media for some time. In Wales, the reduction in the number of PE teachers almost exactly reflects the proportionate reduction in the number of pupils. In January this year, there was only one vacancy for a PE teacher in a secondary school in Wales.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of sport to schools in Wales. Yes, the Government attach great importance to sport in schools in Wales, because games teach young people how to work together as a team, how to co-operate with each other, how to strive towards a common goal and how to be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat—all attributes that are absent in the Labour party.

    Employment Opportunities
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase employment opportunities in Ceredigion.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The responsibility of Government is to create the right conditions for the economy to grow. The latest index of production showing that Wales has gone ahead by 8.3 per cent. in the 12 months to August and a continuing fall in unemployment in Ceredigion demonstrate that our policies are succeeding there and in the rest of Wales.
    Mr. Dafis: Having directly caused the loss of 60 well-paid and secure jobs in the Aberystwyth area by the removal of the Welsh Office agriculture department from Trawsgoed to occupy space that happened to become available in the Cathays Park Welsh Office in July, will the Minister undertake to look carefully at a report being prepared by a local campaign group on the future of ADAS—the Agricultural Development Advisory Service—with a view to making Aberystwyth the Wales headquarters of ADAS, an organisation whose future is under review? Does he accept that that would be some

    917
    attempt at recompense for the damage he has done by the closure of the office of the Welsh Office agriculture department in Trawsgoed?
    Mr. Jones: Much as I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, I remind him that we have a duty to husband the taxpayer's money as carefully as possible. To indulge in other office accommodation when there was vacant office accommodation would have been a rather ungreen gesture and I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman in that respect. I shall study very carefully any report about ADAS, although, of course, its use for offices and laboratories is essentially its own responsibility.

    Regional Policy
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the Government's policy on the concept of Europe of the regions.
    Mr. Redwood: Diversity is Europe's strength. We believe that that can best be enhanced by leaving as many things as possible to local and national decision taking.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department disbursed some £6.4 billion throughout Wales last year while the European Community disbursed only £50 million? Is it not worth remembering that the European Community is seeking to harness regional sentiment against national Governments so as to centralise power and not necessarily to improve the condition of the regions?
    Mr. Redwood: It is very important that that should not be the aim, although I think that there are probably some in Europe who are centralisers rather than having a sincere belief in more regional and local independence and autonomy. We should resist that very strongly, because diversity and choice are crucial to successful trade, friendship and co-operation. It would not be helped by the latest Labour proposals for a senate for Wales, which again would probably end up taxing people for the privilege of being Welsh, spending more of their money and asking them to obey more laws for the privilege of being Welsh.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if he is to maintain his credentials as one of the Cabinet's leading Euro-enthusiasts, at least relative to his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), he will provide the funding for research back-up for the Welsh Euro-forum, which he and his party helped to set up, and for the six members and alternates from Wales on the European Committee of the Regions?
    Mr. Redwood: I cannot make that promise. The reporting-back system has been set up by Welsh local government. I and other hon. Members hope that invitations will be forthcoming to some Members of Parliament and to Members of the European Parliament because we think that that may help their deliberations. However, it is a local government initiative and therefore can be paid for out of the very generous total funding and grant from the Welsh Office to local government.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the cost of the reorganisation of local government in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The local authority associations have asked my right hon. Friend to make a provision of £49.5 million in 1995–96 and he will announce his decision very shortly.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister think it fair that charge payers in Clwyd and, indeed, other counties in Wales, should have to bear the burden of local government reorganisation when counties in England, such as Cheshire and Shropshire which border my county, will retain two-tier government? Is it not a scandal that £49 million has had to be requested to cover the cost of reorganisation? Will he make strenuous demands on the Treasury to ensure that additional funding is given to local authorities to meet the cost of a reorganisation which is not happening in England?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's hypothesis anticipates the result that he has not yet heard. I suggest that he should remain patient.

    Drugs
    Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resources made available to combat the drug threat in Wales.
    Mr. Richards: It is a high priority of Government to combat the misuse of drugs. The provision of services is the responsibility of the relevant local statutory agencies.
    Mr. Anderson: The Minister suggests that it is a high priority, but it is clearly a lower priority than cutting the number of customs offices and a lower priority than preventing the South Glamorgan police from having adequate resources to do their job. Will the Minister consider in particular the proposed withdrawal by the Home Office of the grant to the west Glamorgan drugs prevention team at the end of March? It is the only such initiative in Wales. If it is transferred to the Welsh Office and reinstated, will the Minister give an undertaking that this will be done without taking money from other Welsh Office initiatives in the county?
    Mr. Richards: The team in Swansea is part of a Home Office-funded pilot project. Funding for that pilot comes to an end in March 1995. I know that the team has done a lot of good work in Swansea, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking to the new Welsh drug and alcohol unit to replicate that good work throughout the whole of Wales.

    Inward Investment
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy

    919
    of the arrangements and incentives for attracting inward investment to Wales and for encouraging indigenous businesses; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: I can reassure my right hon. Friend that we intend to continue the vigorous promotion of Wales as a first-class place in which to invest.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: In complimenting my right hon. Friend on the record number of applications for project grants in 1993–94, a total of 314, and the fact that a high proportion of them have been processed as far as the offer stage so that 8,000 new jobs have been promised and nearly 5,000 safeguarded, may I nevertheless urge my right hon. Friend to preserve the top priority that I know he gives to the development of the Welsh economy and to disregard the carping criticisms which masquerade as Opposition policy?
    Mr. Redwood: Winning for Wales is the No. 1 objective of the Welsh Office, and we intend to carry on winning. I am delighted that unemployment is down to 9 per cent. and still falling, with a very large fall in October. I hope that Opposition Members will have the courtesy to acknowledge that that is good news.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that his policies have failed dismally in south Wales, especially when we consider the report sponsored by the Government's research council which shows that male unemployment levels in former coalfield areas are now running at 33 per cent. rather than the 16 per cent. that is published—and fiddled—by the Department of Employment?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree that there are still pockets of unemployment which we intend to tackle very vigorously. However, the overall totals are coming down and the overall percentage is much more reasonable, although of course we want to get it much lower. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will co-operate in the big task that I have now set for the whole of Wales—to raise the private finance to add to the public money that we are spending so as to finish the job and ensure that the towns and valleys are regenerated.
    Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the constituency of Ludlow adjoins Wales. He will also be aware of the many representations that I have made to him and to his predecessors about the unfairness of the grants available to companies operating in Wales which are not available to companies operating in Shropshire. What has been the effect of the Welsh Office moratorium on grants in aid through the Development Board for Rural Wales? I am sure that the House will be interested to know what my right hon. Friend's experiences have been in that direction.
    Mr. Redwood: I am delighted to report to my hon. Friend that unemployment continued to fall rapidly in mid-Wales even though we were not paying grants, although the grant system has now been restored through local authorities.

    Town Centres
    Dr. Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance his Department is giving to regenerate town centres in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: A range of Welsh Office responsibilities in conjunction with local authorities, development agencies and other public bodies are being used to promote the successful regeneration of Welsh town centres.
    Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that many towns in Wales are suffering very badly as a result of out-of-town shopping developments? Welcome though the employment is in many of those developments, they are having a very serious effect on town centres and the commercial hearts of towns. In Bridgend, 37 shops have closed, in my constituency of Pontypridd 12 have closed, and 27 have closed in Tonypandy. That experience can be replicated all over Wales. What does the Minister intend to do to provide a strategic lead to ensure that local authorities have some sense and to make it clear that the Welsh Office wishes them to look after the commercial hearts of our towns and to stop that rundown going any further?
    Mr. Jones: I must direct the hon. Gentleman to planning policy guidance note No. 6, which relates to the provision of town centres. I can also point to an announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 21 November when he repeated the advice in planning policy guidance and expressed the desire that there should be restraint in granting planning permissions for out-of-town food supermarkets. If the hon. Gentleman considers our strategic development scheme, he will find that £10 million—17 per cent. of the total—has been allocated to assist with the regeneration of town centres, and similar schemes will continue to receive a significantly high priority in next year's round.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in Wales; and what was the level in October 1993.
    Mr. Redwood: In October 1994, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Wales was 9 per cent., compared with 10.2 per cent. in October 1993. That represents a reduction of 14,700 or 11.4 per cent. in the number of people unemployed in Wales, and is most welcome.
    Mr. Coombs: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm and buttress that good news by telling the House how many job vacancies there are in Wales, as that is another good indication of the progress being made. Also, how many of the jobs created in the past year were as a result of European funding and how many jobs might not have been achieved in the past year and previously if Wales had not been a part of the United Kingdom and of the European Union?
    Mr. Redwood: I think that that would require a little research, encyclopaedic though my knowledge may be of the unemployment figures in Wales. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that a lot of the jobs came because of inward investment from England as well as from overseas, and a lot came from indigenous investment and the

    921
    growth of small businesses. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there were 12,400 more full-time jobs in manufacturing in the year to June 1994, which is a most welcome development.
    Mr. Llwyd rose — [Interruption.]
    Mr. Rogers: That is four out of four.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams rose
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) should keep his temper—I do not want it. I call Mr. Alan W. Williams.
    Mr. Williams: What does the Secretary of State have to say to creamery workers in west Wales? On 1 November, 156 workers at Whitland creamery were made redundant. Last weekend we heard that in Newcastle Emlyn the Dansco plant, which employs 73 people, is up for sale. There are also some doubts about the Llangadog and Haverfordwest creameries. All those are the results of the Government's reorganisation of the milk marketing scheme. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the chaos at the creameries and in the dairy industry?
    Mr. Redwood: I am concerned, and I have asked the Welsh Development Agency to see what can be done to help in those cases. I will, of course, take up the matter further following the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
    Mr. Rogers rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has any complaint about the number of hon. Members I am calling, I invite him to put a substantive motion on the Order Paper, and I shall see that it is debated.
    Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Points of order are taken after Question Time.
    Mr. Rogers rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Name him.1 I do not wish to name anyone today. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I am sure that he will do that.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Finance
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners how much per capita giving by church members is taken into account when the estimates of the Church Commissioners are made; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners' forward estimates relate only to their own investment income, but their stipend allocations to dioceses take account of the special needs of poorer dioceses, including potential income from church members in those dioceses. Giving is the largest and most important source of funding. In
    922
    1992, giving through parishes amounted to about £274 million. Covenanted giving amounted to about £4.10 per subscriber per week.
    Mr. Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend seen statistics in the newspapers indicating that church membership is now at its lowest level ever? Will he comment on that? Does he agree that church membership and giving depend crucially on the leadership given by the Church and its priests? Does he share my concern that a Swaffham vicar is not following the Church's teaching in the way he is behaving and will my right hon. Friend support the actions of the Bishop of Norwich?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend referred to an individual case in a certain parish with which the Bishop of Norwich is dealing and it would be quite outside the scope of my responsibilities to comment on that. The donation figure that I cited of £4.10 per subscriber per week to the covenanted giving system of the Church of England is a sum which could probably, without great difficulty or pressure, be greatly increased. Appropriate and convincing leadership of integrity in the parishes will undoubtedly be able to exploit the scope for giving which exists.

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what evidence he has that redundant churches are being converted to commercial use.
    Mr. Alison: By the end of 1993, 78 redundant churches had been appropriated for storage, light industrial, office or shopping uses and 160 churches had been appropriated for residential uses. The commissioners' latest annual report—a copy of which is in the Library—contains details of the many and varied uses found so far for no fewer than 742 redundant churches since 1969.
    Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman knows of the case of St John's church, Hanley, in Stoke-on-Trent—a fine church which a commercial company wishes to turn into a climbing centre. Will the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow commissioners agree to meet interested local residents, the diocese and the local planning authority to discuss the well worked out and costed plans of the local action committee to save the church? Does he agree that it is not good to encourage the conversion of churches for commercial use when there is keen local interest in saving them for worship and other community uses?
    Mr. Alison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am familiar with the case of St John's, Hanley. Although the friends of the local parish church offered an alternative proposal to the projected climbing enterprise, it seemed to the diocese and to the commissioners that the climbing enterprise idea was a firmer proposition. However, it has not yet received planning permission. If the climbing centre scheme does not proceed, the commissioners will look forward to the diocese's further recommendations, which I am sure will include the friends' alternative use to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would meet a deputation of interested parties. I shall be glad to talk about the practicalities and the usefulness of such a visit with an open mind.

    Pensions
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what guarantees of pensions are being made to serving and retired clergy and employees of the Church of England.
    Mr. Alison: The security of existing clergy pensions is not at issue as the value of the commissioners' assets comfortably exceeds the accrued pension liabilities for retired clergy and those currently in active service. Separate funding arrangements are in place to pay the pensions of lay employees in the Church of England.
    The commissioners and the pensions board are discussing with dioceses proposals for funding pension liabilities arising from the future service of clergy on a more sustainable basis involving contributions. This will help to secure the commissioners' continuing ability to help the Church in other ways.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of concern about the amount of Church Commissioners' assets that were lost due to unfortunate property speculations in the past few years? There is a danger that this will impact on the pension funds and therefore affect not just the ability to pay pensions in the near or foreseeable future but the ability to increase pensions at least in line with average earnings. Many clergy and staff of the Church are deeply concerned about this matter. Can the Minister assure them not only that pensions will continue to be paid at existing levels, but that they will be increased in the future?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. The answer that I gave to the hon. Gentleman that the value of the commissioners' assets comfortably exceeds what is needed is based on our past performance. We have increased pensions at a substantially higher rate than the rate of inflation—indeed, at levels almost approaching earnings—and we hope to be able to do that using existing assets for the categories that I have described. It is precisely because we want to make certain that future pensions can be increased in a way that is desirable and for which there are precedents that we are moving to introduce a contributory base through the dioceses.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the loss of assets due to property speculation. In fact, the value of the portfolio is rapidly increasing again with the change in market values, and we have complete confidence that we shall be able to sustain the level of pensions.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Privity of Contract and Estate
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to introduce legislation to implement Law Commission report No. 174, on privity of contract and estate.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): My hon. Friend is entitled to return to the charge in this matter. I personally wish to make progress in this area. I shall be meeting
    924
    some of the leading representatives of the interests affected to discuss possible ways forward and I think that there may be more news on this subject shortly.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Law Commission produced its report as long ago as 1988— indeed, I asked my hon. Friend a question about it as long ago as May 1993, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) tried to introduce a private Member's Bill on the subject? Is he further aware that there are some cases of real hardship? Several lease assignments ago, people were called on to meet obligations involving rent increases of which they were not even aware. Will my hon. Friend pledge the Government to support any amending legislation, from whatever source it might come?
    Mr. Taylor: I am aware of the hardship and I take no pleasure in the fact that my hon. Friend has had to ask the same question twice. I admire the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who is sitting behind my hon. Friend. The Government would certainly help any private Member's initiative to deal with the matter.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he intends to broaden eligibility rules for legal aid.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to assist those on low incomes to gain access to legal aid.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Almost half the households in England and Wales currently qualify for civil legal aid. In serious criminal cases, anyone who needs help meeting the costs may qualify. The Lord Chancellor reviews legal aid financial limits each year and will shortly be considering what changes he should make in April 1995.
    Mr. Bayley: Is the Minister aware of the rapidly increasing number of people on low incomes who now find that they cannot obtain legal aid and therefore cannot obtain access to the courts? Only this morning I learned of a woman in my constituency whose only income is invalidity benefit and who has lost her job through ill health. Her marriage has broken up and she has been asked to contribute £90 per month under the legal aid scheme for legal representation in the divorce proceedings. She cannot afford that money, so she is not represented. What plans do the Government have to re-widen the scope of legal aid so that people such as my constituent are properly represented in the courts?
    Mr. Taylor: The legal aid system in this country is a generous one. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for that. The Labour spokesman in the House of Lords said it recently on the record. In Britain, 48 per cent. of households are eligible. The point about invalidity benefit is simply that although some welfare benefits enjoy an automatic passporting into legal aid, invalidity benefit does not because it is not means-tested. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to have a look at the case to which he referred, I will certainly do so.
    Mr. Flynn: When will the Government end the generosity and scandal of a legal aid system which allows millionaires to loot huge sums of money on the pretext

    925
    that their financial assets are temporarily frozen when Mr. Ray Murton, a low-paid labourer living in a council flat, was denied legal aid in a case of alleged medical blunder in which he lost a leg? Why is it that 75 per cent. of households enjoyed legal aid in 1979, but more than half the households in Britain are now denied access to justice in a system that is increasingly discredited, wasteful and unjust?
    Mr. Taylor: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Lord Chancellor is shortly to issue a consultation document called "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy". Hon. Members who have misgivings on the matter can certainly register their views. I imagine that they would like to register their views.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that disabled people on low incomes are particularly disadvantaged in sustaining their legal rights? If we are not to have a disability rights commission, an omission which I would regret, will my hon. Friend consider sympathetically and constructively the case for extending legal aid to enable disabled people to avail themselves of the new rights that the Government propose to establish for them in employment and other areas?
    Mr. Taylor: I will gladly discuss the matter personally with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). There is an extremely complicated set of interrelationships between the welfare system and the legal aid system. A fundamental review of the legal aid system is going on now. We shall consider all these things and I shall remember what my hon. Friend has said.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of my constituents are perfectly happy to pay for the half of the households in Britain who are eligible for legal aid, but far from happy to have to pay for legal aid for illegal immigrants? We are the only country in the world that would dream of paying legal aid for such persons.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend's constituents have many reasons to be extremely happy with their lot. She mentioned one way in which they are not. That matter would come squarely within the ambit of the Lord Chancellor's consultation document, "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy". I remind this honourable House that in this country all people are equal before the law courts, even if they are foreigners.
    Mr. Boateng: No Opposition Member would describe the legal aid scheme as generous—on the contrary. How does the Minister justify the fact that people whose immense wealth is shielded by family trusts continue to receive legal aid while many people of modest means are denied it altogether, such as the pensioner on £343 a month who lost his voice box as a result of medical negligence at St. Mary's hospital and is required to pay an additional £44 a month towards the cost of legal advice and assistance? How can that be just? When will the
    926
    Government understand that the people of this country do not want more consultations, reviews and Treasury-led solutions, but justice?
    Mr. Taylor: Let us keep the record straight: I did not describe our legal aid as generous—the noble Lord Williams of Mostyn said it in another place, speaking for the Labour party.
    Sir Anthony Grant: In any changes that he may make, will my hon. Friend bear two things in mind? First, there is far too much litigation in this country; we do not want to go down the same road as the United States. Secondly, will he bear in mind the risk that a recipient of legal aid can, by blackmailing, spell ruin for people who are just above the level for receiving such aid?
    Mr. Taylor: I certainly agree that there is too much litigation and that it is too complicated. I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks closely in mind.

    Crown Courts
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the scheduling of cases in the Crown courts.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I have no plans to review the scheduling of cases in the Crown court. Cases are listed by court staff working under judicial guidance, within guidelines approved by the Lord Chief Justice.
    Mr. Dowd: Does the Parliamentary Secretary share my extreme concern at the experience of a constituent who, on arriving home on a Monday evening, found a message on her telephone answering machine saying that the extremely serious case that she was pressing was to be heard the following morning at the Old Bailey? It is not surprising that she felt so pressurised and ill prepared that she was unable to continue with it. Does the Minister agree that the court's decision was intolerable and inefficient, not to say callous? What is his Department doing—with the Attorney—General and the Home Department—to ensure the sensitive and efficient administration that is necessary to retain public confidence in the criminal justice system?
    Mr. Taylor: A scheme of plea and directions hearings in all cases is being planned for all Crown court centres, starting in January next. Meanwhile, the House should know that court listing is very difficult. It is only as precise as the information received from the parties involved. Sometimes a civil case scheduled for a five-day trial will settle on the court steps. In criminal cases, a defendant who says that he intends to plead not guilty all too often changes his mind at the last moment—that happens in 50 per cent. of cases.

    Immigration
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the waiting list for the processing of non-asylum applications to the immigration appellate adjudicator.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Once the parties have indicated readiness to proceed, the average waiting time for a non-asylum appeal to be heard by an adjudicator is nine weeks.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, although that is the average, many take

    927
    much longer and that every time there is a delay it also affects the families abroad? Can he ensure in the coming year that additional resources are made available to deal with the backlog without prejudice to present applicants?
    Mr. Taylor: Waiting times have come down in the past two years, but not so much as the hon. Gentleman or I would like. We are taking a number of specific measures. Five are listed in my brief. If the hon. Gentleman would like, rather than gabbling them into the microphone I will write to him to tell him what they are.

    Judicial Studies Board
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the work of the Judicial Studies Board.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Judicial Studies Board is to conduct an internal review of its structure and resources, the activities to be undertaken, and the priorities to be accorded to them.
    Lady Olga Maitland: As the Lord Chancellor's Department spends nearly £1 million on race awareness courses for judges, does my hon. Friend agree that it is plain common sense to merge the main points of those seminars with the annual judicial studies which take place every Christmas? That would save the Government a lot of money, and end that political incorrectness.
    Mr. Taylor: The vast majority of those who have taken part in the programme so far have found it valuable to them in their work as judges. Racial awareness courses are extremely important if we are to assure the minorities within society that the judicial system is fair to them as well as to us.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further consideration he has given to the reform of legal aid.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: A number of initiatives are currently in hand for making improvements to the legal aid scheme. The most significant of these is a fundamental review of the scheme.
    Mr. Enright: Can the Minister understand the extreme bitterness of my constituents who are refused legal aid, even though they are on poverty wages, while people such as Ernest Saunders, Asil Nadir and other wealthy crooks are given massive help by his Department and while barristers go on day after day spitting out their profits?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will take only modest comfort from the fact that we are to issue a paper entitled "Legal Aid for the Apparently Wealthy", as I said earlier. The issues involved should be looked at from first principles, and my efforts will join those of the hon. Gentleman in that spirit.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people come to my advice centres complaining that the people who are proceeding against them are on legal aid, and that they therefore cannot hope to fight successfully against the weight of the state's money?
    Mr. Taylor: A possible part of the original sin of the legal aid system is that there are civil cases in which one party receives legal aid and the other does not. If I had a remedy for that this afternoon, I would certainly offer it to the House. I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are about to have what the Prime Minister has styled a confidence debate. If you in your wisdom select an amendment for that debate, presumably we.shall have a confidence vote later this evening. If we go on to vote on Second Reading, there will be another confidence vote. In the later stages of the Bill—since the Prime Minister has said that he requires it in all its essentials—we might have yet more confidence votes.
I am anxious not to miss any of those confidence votes, and this is uncharted territory. Would it be in order to introduce a procedure whereby a member of the Government can come before the House to say formally each and every time that the suicide pact is in operation?
Madam Speaker: Our procedures have stood us in good stead so far, and we shall continue today's debate as we have always done on such matters. I shall put the Question on the amendment at the appropriate time, and then the main Question. After that, as someone very famous once said, "Tomorrow is another day".
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on motion No. 4 on the Order Paper, which refers to the Scottish Grand Committee, which will be meeting in Edinburgh on Monday 5 December at 10.30 am. I understand that the Committee will be debating the Children (Scotland) Bill, and that that will in fact be the Second Reading of the Bill, although there is no indication on the Order Paper that that is the case.
If that is the case, the Committee will get four and a half hours to debate the Second Reading of a Bill for which we in Scotland have waited for five years. That seems inappropriate, because we would have six and a half hours for debate if Second Reading was debated on the Floor of the House. Four and a half hours is a totally inadequate time, and I would ask for a ruling that we should have more time to debate the Second Reading of such an important Bill.
Madam Speaker: The solution to the hon. Gentleman's question is that when the motion is put this evening, he and any of his colleagues will be allowed an opportunity to vote against it. They will therefore be able to seek the changes which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I seek your reassurance, Madam Speaker. I see that a coach belonging to you is in Westminster Hall. I should like you to reassure us that the rumour we have heard that those of us who should in any way contravene one of your rulings would be expected to drag you through the streets in that coach is totally unfounded.
Madam Speaker: The rumour is not totally unfounded, but that must be done by reindeer.
Mr. David Witmick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understood that, once elected to the House, hon. Members can vote according to their judgment, but obviously with guidance from their Whips. If, at the end of a debate, they decide to vote
930
independently, however, they are free to do so. What worries me, hence my point of order to you, Madam Speaker, are the stories in the newspapers of intense pressure and even intimidation being placed on Conservative Members to vote in a certain way tonight. Their constituency associations have also been telephoned. Such practice seems to undermine hon. Members' independence to apply their conscience to how they vote. Do you agree, Madam Speaker, that should those Conservative Members vote under pressure and intimidation, that undermines the whole concept of parliamentary democracy?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is probably verging on the question of privilege. If he is serious about that matter, as he appears to be, he should put his concern in writing to me and I shall certainly consider it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that I have written a long letter to you on this very issue.
Madam Speaker: That is why the hon. Gentleman should not raise the matter with me at this stage.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That letter refers to a conversation that took place between a Central Office official and the chairman of the Billericay Conservative association. When can we expect to have a ruling on privilege?
Madam Speaker: I have not yet had the opportunity to see the hon. Gentleman's letter, but I know that it has been received by my office. I shall deal with it at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Andrew Miller: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I spent part of this morning at the Royal Courts of Justice listening to what the Press Association has described as "a landmark legal victory", which severely criticises the Home Office. One of the cases affected concerns Mr. Paul Malone, about whom I have spoken on many occasions and asked numerous questions. Have you, Madam Speaker, received any requests from Ministers to make a statement on that judgment? Can you further assist me by telling me how I can deal with that matter properly, given that the Home Secretary, with the support of the Prime Minister, refuses to meet me to discuss the case?
Madam Speaker: I have not heard that any Minister is seeking to make a statement today on that matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows how to use our procedures well by this stage, but he can table questions, seek Adjournment debates and use other procedural means to raise that issue.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that I shall not appear discourteous to you, because that is not intended, but I want to know what will happen to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. According to press reports at the weekend, he has succeeded to a peerage. I understand that he issued a press statement this afternoon that he has disclaimed the peerage, if he has inherited it. Apparently it is not clear whether he has inherited that title because it is a matter for the Lord Lion court of Scotland. In a modern Parliament, we should have absolute clarity about who are and who are not Members

931
of Parliament. I am told that there is no documentation available in this Palace to check whether the hon. Gentleman has renounced the title or succeeded to it. We need clarification on that. Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that that matter will be reported in the Journal tomorrow?
Madam Speaker: The House should be aware that on the death of the Earl of Selkirk, which took place on Thursday, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) accepted advice to the effect that if he thought that he was the heir to the earldom, he should cease to sit and vote in the House until he had reached a decision on whether to disclaim the title. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) should not always follow newspaper reports.
The House has been officially notified today that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has disclaimed the title under the provisions of the Peerage Act 1963. The hon. Gentleman is now therefore once more able to sit and vote in the House.

Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Finance) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Because of the interest in this debate, I have had to limit speeches to 10 minutes between the hours of 6 pm and 8 pm. I ask other hon. Members who speak outside that time to be courteous to their colleagues by restricting the length of their speeches.
  3.39 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill will ratify the highly successful deal negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, at Edinburgh in 1992. The new financial decision that emerged from Edinburgh will add about £75 million a year to our net contributions to the European Union in the next financial year, and that sum will increase to about £250 million a year by 1999.

  That increase in the contribution is an increase in the price that we pay for the undoubted benefits of membership of the European Union. Our economic well-being is dependent in huge part on our membership of the single market. We pay for a seat at the table to enable us to influence the political and commercial character of that market. We use our membership of the European Union to increase our influence in the world and to give added clout to our worldwide foreign policy.
  The Edinburgh deal paid a fair price for those benefits and it also achieved other things in the financial area. It took the United Kingdom down the league table of contributors to the European budget. As a result of the Edinburgh deal, not only Germany, which has always paid more than us, but the Netherlands, France, Sweden, Austria and—if it joins—Norway, will all in the future make a bigger net contribution per head to the Community than do we in the United Kingdom. The deal will also continue to reduce the proportion of the total budget devoted to the common agricultural policy as a result of the mechanism of so-called agricultural guidelines.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall in a second.
  The Edinburgh deal also preserved the British rebate. So far, that has been worth £16 billion to us, and that rebate has been preserved until the end of the century.
  Mr. Marlow: When the right hon. Lady, the then Prime Minister, came back with the rebate on 27 June 1984, she said:
  "this system can be changed only by a unanimous decision by all member Governments and ratified by their Parliaments. The benefits

  933
  for the United Kingdom will continue unless and until we ourselves agree to change it."—[0fficial Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 993.]
  Was she right or was she talking nonsense?
  Mr. Clarke: She was perfectly right. If my hon. Friend will restrain himself at this stage, the rebate was negotiated at Fontainebleau in 1984 and unanimity is required to change it but, as I shall explain in a moment, usually a large number of issues are on the table at Councils to revisit those financial deals; countries pursue a variety of objectives; and each country puts into issues the subjects that it wishes to reopen.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that the subject of the British rebate is reopened by our partners at every possible opportunity and it was on the table at Edinburgh, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stuck to his guns and insisted that the British rebate should remain part of the financial arrangements. As a result of the Edinburgh deal, it is now preserved at least until the end of the present century.
  Before I discuss the Edinburgh deal in detail, we must first be sure about the present level of our contributions to the European Union. Last week, it was plain that there is still, in spite of the copious document that I produced, a certain lack of clarity. The contributions that we are paying this year are based on the framework that was agreed by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in 1988 at the Brussels summit, the last time that a financial framework was negotiated before 1992.
  Margaret Thatcher had a tough time at Brussels in 1988, and it is worth remembering what the financial picture then was. The Commission and most of the other member states wanted the ceiling to go up to 1.4 per cent. of Community gross national product. Eventually, they revised their proposals downwards and she was asked to accept 1.3 per cent. of GNP as the ceiling. She still said, on behalf of the British Government, that that was too high. Jacques Delors then proposed 1.2 per cent. Chancellor Helmut Kohl was alarmed by the effect that that might have on German farmers. Chancellor Kohl wanted to go to 1.3 per cent., but Margaret Thatcher stuck to her guns and she settled at the Jacques Delors compromise of 1.2 per cent.
  Five years later, at Edinburgh, when the matter had to be reopened, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was still, in the end, not taken anywhere near the figures that Chancellor Kohl and others had been demanding five years earlier. Not by the end of the century will we reach the figures that others were demanding of the British Government in 1988. The Edinburgh settlement will move our contribution to 1.21 per cent. in 1995–96, and to 1.27 per cent. by 1998–99.
  What of today's figures, which result from the Margaret Thatcher settlement and the 1.2 per cent. of gross national product to which the Edinburgh deal will be added? What about the billions of pounds whose payment, and forecasts of which, now appear to cause some of my right hon. and hon. Friends such concern? Since 1988, there has been a history of very erratic figures. The highest net public sector contribution that we have made so far is the £2.4 billion paid in 1989–90; the lowest is the £943 million paid in 1991–92. There is a genuine reason for that: technical factors make the figures veer about unpredictably from year to year. The timing of our receipts and payments is unpredictable, and difficulties are involved in calculating the rebate.
  934
  The legal basis of the payments is certain, settled by the financial framework, but the timing in any British financial year from April to April is notoriously difficult, given that the rest of Europe and the Union work on a calendar year. There has always been uncertainty: if right hon. and hon. Members look back, they will see that forecasting has been difficult under every Government of every complexion in every year of our membership of the Community and, subsequently, the Union. One thing we do know is that the figures tend to rise in cash terms over the years; that is the inevitable effect of inflation and the overall growth of our GNP, and that is why we have reached the £3 billion figure that has been debated in the past week.
  As people continue to be alarmed by such figures, let me make it clear that there is nothing new about them. We have always known that our net contribution would eventually exceed £3 billion: we have always said that it would do so in the end as a result of the Margaret Thatcher Brussels summit deal, if it had never been altered.
  Let us take the current year—the year over which there was so much fuss last week when I produced the figures a week earlier than I would normally produce the latest forecast so that we should be better informed today and, I hoped, engage in an intelligent discussion about the cost to the country of the European Union. The first forecast for 1994–95 was made in the Treasury's 1991 autumn statement, and amounted to £3.3 billion. I do not recall the slightest fuss being made at the time. In the 1992 autumn statement, the forecast amounted to £3.1 billion; again, no one raised a murmur. Last year, the autumn statement forecast had come down, because—trying to predict our payments and receipts—we expected this to be a particularly low year: we made a forecast of £1.7 billion. Last week, I announced our latest forecast of £2.4 billion.
  Those forecasts show the difficulty of forecasting, which no one has ever claimed to be an exact science. They show either a rise of £700 million or a fall of £900 million over the past few years, according to taste. What matters about the figures—
  Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I can think of no other hon. Member to whom I should make this point more clearly than my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)—the man who has chosen not only to show the uncertainty of the figures, but to suggest that there is some untruthfulness or deceit behind them. He has rejected my allegations that he was talking alarmist nonsense, as indeed he was, a fortnight ago. Those figures have nothing whatever to do with the Edinburgh deal, or with the Bill.
  Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, when he came to the House last week and produced the revised figures, he was obliged to do so? What I said was not rubbish, as he said on a radio programme the other day. I said that there had been a serious omission of enormous proportions from the letter that he sent round, and that that was unacceptable.
  Mr. Clarke: I most definitely was not obliged to produce those figures last week. My hon. Friend was utterly amazed that I did so last week. He would have produced his figures and carried on making mischief with them if I had not produced my figures last week. Those

  935
  figures would normally have been produced at the time of the Budget tomorrow. Had I produced them tomorrow, I predict that we should have had the same nonsense surrounding them as last week. As my hon. Friend knows, my letter set out accurately and clearly the financial consequences of the Edinburgh summit and the financial consequences of the Bill. That has been incontrovertible throughout. The forecast that I gave last week of this year's contribution, which has nothing to do with Edinburgh, is lower than some forecasts that we have given and higher than other forecasts that we have given. I think that the outturn will show this year to be a fairly normal year.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer clear up this matter once and for all? Given what we know of the European Community—that it thought that the figure was higher than £1.7 billion since January—when did the Treasury first calculate that the figure would be higher than £1.7 billion? Was it last week or was it a few months ago?
  Mr. Clarke: As far as I am aware, the European Union does not calculate in advance the net contribution from particular countries. It knows what the legal obligation is. For our public spending purposes, we produce forecasts of receipts and expenditure. We produce net contribution figures and we produce them annually. We are for ever altering the forecast. We produce the figures at the time of the Budget. As far as I am aware, no Chancellor of the Exchequer has produced the latest forecasts a week ahead of the Budget. I did so in order that the debate should be better informed. I thought that it was a useful exercise in open government, but not everyone is ready for open government in this country yet.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the issue is not really whether there are different assumptions and different ways of calculating, although there certainly are and all hon. Members can honourably and in a friendly way disagree about them? The difficulty is this. When the measure was first proposed, it was presented as being for £75 million. At a later stage, it appeared that the first year's contribution might be a lot larger. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends say that, of course, it was first of all presented as being a little measure. Then, when it became necessary to bash it through with a quite unnecessary element of confidence added to it, and the country began to ask, "Why are you blackmailing your Back Benchers over £75 million?" it became necessary to say that the measure was for a larger sum.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend and I have conducted this debate, or variants of it, with respect and in a friendly spirit for many years. He appreciates what the issue is, although I was not sure about that from his intervention. The reason why I produced the figures last week, ahead of when I had to, was to demonstrate the latest forecasts of the underlying pre-Edinburgh contribution. As he knows, there is a legitimate issue of what the consequences are of moving from a ceiling based on 1.20 per cent. of our GNP, in steady steps to 1.27 per cent. of our GNP by 1999. The figure that I first put forward—the figure in the letter that I sent to every Member of Parliament in an attempt to make the debate better informed than I feared
  936
  it might otherwise be—remains accurate. The consequences of going from 1.20 per cent. to 1.21 per cent. are about £75 million next year—a sum on which Parliament must obviously vote and approve or not approve. Similarly, going to 1.27 per cent. by 1999 will have a £250 million consequence. That is the issue before us. To be fair to my hon. Friend, he has never traduced my efforts to make that clear.
  I should not seek to blackmail my hon. Friend, but I wish to persuade him of the merits of the deal—to which I shall return when I resume my speech—and that his conscience, lifelong commitment to the Conservative party, sense of proportion and of his country's duty of keeping its word when it enters into commitments with our partners in the European Union, should lead him to support the Bill tonight, with no question of having his arm twisted.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor answer my question? Did he know of the Treasury forecast revising the contribution upwards from £1.7 billion when he wrote his letter to Members of Parliament?
  Mr. Clarke: I honestly cannot remember. [Laughter.] My letter to Members of Parliament was based on the consequences of the Edinburgh summit. When one prepares a Budget, forecasts and tables flow through the Treasury, normally to be produced on the day of the Budget in the Red Book. I do not normally trail in advance tables that are to appear in the Red Book or any part of them. I prepared a letter about the Bill containing the figures that I gave a moment ago. Only when confusion arose about the figures and a date was set for this debate did I decide that one line of those figures—the forecast of our EU contributions—should be abstracted and given to the House.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) supports the Edinburgh deal, so he must find it difficult to know which issues to raise in this debate. He can only trawl about, joining some of my hon. Friends in trying to obscure the real issue behind the Bill. I fear that he is somewhat scraping the barrel.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend telling the House that he cannot remember the advice of his Treasury officials when he took the most unusual step of writing a round-robin to 651 Members of Parliament in advance of this debate? That letter conveniently referred to the extra amount that would be paid over and above the sum predicted, rather than to the net contributions that our people will have to pay.
  Mr. Clarke: I wrote about the Bill's financial consequences and the amount of money riding on this evening's vote. I did not write about the forecast contribution that would arise this year from the 1988 settlement long ago ratified by the House and now utterly beyond its control. I wrote about the issue before us tonight. The attempt to make a great issue about the forecast of this year's contribution, which is £900 million lower than that which we made two years ago but

  937
  admittedly £700 million higher than the one that we made 12 months ago, is an attempt—with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend—to introduce a complete irrelevance.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman rose—
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to both my hon. Friends, but as I am sure that they both want to speak, perhaps they will allow me to make a little progress first.
  Around £75 million is therefore the correct figure for the effect of the Bill next year. The issue that we should address is why it was necessary, given that large underlying net contribution to which we were already committed, to agree to give anything more at the Edinburgh summit. That is a serious question.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, because that would be unfair to my other hon. Friends.
  Why was it necessary to add anything to the £2 billion to £3 billion, which I have just been talking about, and which flowed from the Brussels summit in 1988? The first thing to understand—it is rarely understood by anybody discussing European Councils of any kind—is that we were pursuing a package of aims at the extremely important Edinburgh Council. We had to help the Danes to obtain Maastricht opt-outs similar to our own to keep them in the Union as our decentralising and anti-federalist allies. We had to secure the completion of the single market as we wanted it to be. We had to turn subsidiarity into a more concrete form to get something to flow from it, and we had to secure agreement to enlargement so that Austria and the Scandinavians might join.
  It was a very tough agenda, and it explains the context in which the decision was reached, which the House is being asked to endorse two years later. We had all those highly important political aims. The danger for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as anyone who has been to any Council of Ministers will readily understand, was that he had to pursue those four political objectives. The danger was that the high spenders in the Union would demand in return too high a price in the new financial arrangements in exchange for our British objectives. The danger of not agreeing any of those things and not having a settlement at the Edinburgh Council would have been that it would all have passed on to the next presidency—it was out of our hands in the British presidency—which might have been less sympathetic.
  At Edinburgh, my right hon. Friend succeeded in every one of the political objectives that I have set out: he secured the Danish opt-outs and the completion of the single market, subsidiarity was turned to concrete form, and there was the agreement to enlargement, which is now taking effect—and still at a modest cost, which kept the British abatement intact.
  Why, after all that had been secured, was there an unavoidable need for any increase in the new financial arrangements? That is the only key question. Why, even when he pursued and got those four key British objectives, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have to concede any more money? That, in my opinion, is about the only sensible question to have been raised in the debate in the past week.
  938
  More money had to go into the structural and cohesion funds to provide the less-developed regions of the Union with the infrastructure and other investment that they required to accept the single market, and certainly to accept enlargement. There are hon. Members who welcome the objective 1 status that the highlands and islands, Liverpool and Merseyside, as well as Northern Ireland, now have. Principally, the money was needed by Spain, Greece and Portugal to accept what we wanted: that they would compete with German, British and French industry in open trading conditions.
  In 1992 we also needed money to give European aid to countries in central and eastern Europe, for example, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Russia. I still debate, in the Council of Finance Ministers, the aid that we give to those countries—countries in which we need to see liberal, democratic government and free market economies and whose stability is vital to European security. More money was inevitable because those were new developments. The question was how much. When one looks at that alongside the political achievements, it is my opinion that the Prime Minister returned to the House with a considerable triumph.
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Does not he agree that most people in this country are concerned about the money that we are already giving, which, as he just pointed out, amounts to 31/2p in the pound on the basic rate of income tax? The constituents whom I represent do not worry too much about putting money into roads in Portugal or into massive irrigation schemes in Spain. They are at a loss to understand why our Government should give priority to the needs of our European partners while neglecting the increase that the taxpayer in this country will have to contribute, which is not a small sum, but which almost amounts to the equivalent that we are trying to raise on VAT?
  Mr. Clarke: The case that I have tried to make so far is that we have, under the existing arrangements, been paying between £2 billion and £3 billion a year to bring the undoubted benefits of the single market and of the European Union to this country. Whatever views people have on Europe, very few have demanded that we leave the Union. That level of net contribution has prevailed for years and years, and has not been debated in the House because it has not been a serious issue since the 1988 settlement arose.
  Another £75 million will be added to that amount next year and I have given two of the reasons why it needs to be added. That £75 million, for the reasons that I have just given, was a virtually unavoidable increase because there were commitments that had not been there before. That was a very, very good settlement given that the main things that people were concerned about at that Council were the opt-out for Denmark, the enlargement to Sweden, Finland, Austria and Norway, turning subsidiarity into something other than a phrase in the Maastricht treaty and the other benefits that I have just described my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister coming back with from the British summit.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I largely accept my right hon. and learned Friend's argument. I represent myself, totally unelected, as somebody from the centrist tendency. We are not much bothered about the odd percentage here and

  939
  there of gross national product. What we are bothered about, I think—and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will come to this point—is that he should satisfy us that the Government have some policy under which something will be done about the fraud and corruption that have been brought to our attention, not for the first time this year, but in years before. Thereafter, let us get the woods from the trees. We can go forward with this matter perfectly happily, as other hon. Members on both sides of the House can.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), not for the first time, speaks for the voice of common sense. I certainly intend in due course to deal with the extremely important question of how we stop fraud and how we stop the misuse of this money. If I have time, I should like to go on to the far more important question of how we get better value for the money that we spend, which is an important issue highlighted by the Bill. I shall deal with those questions and try to explain why I believe that the present situation is not the same as the past. Very much more is being done, although I believe that we must ensure that more is achieved to get a grip on the issue.
  Dr. Robert Spink rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I will not give way yet, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
  As the Bill is concerned with these figures and as we are voting on our increased contribution, I shall conclude my arguments about why I think that the Bill, in terms of the figures, represents a good bargain that the House should approve. I shall then turn to how we can be sure in future that we get much better value out of what we are already paying, as well as the addition that we are talking about this evening.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the end of this debate, shall we have an idea of when the Chancellor of the Exchequer first became aware that the estimate of £1,714 million was an underestimate of about £730 million? More importantly, on the accuracy of the £75 million, as the Chancellor has said, that depends on all the guidelines being met. Does not it worry him that, as my photocopy shows, the 1995 budget of the EC states clearly and precisely that in agricultural spending, the budget will be exceeded by £1 billion? That will be done by accountancy devices in exactly the same way as happened when, unfortunately, Lady Thatcher got agricultural guidelines and they were broken through by having a metric year. How can we stop such a thing, when the figures are written clearly and precisely?
  Mr. Clarke: Throughout the public spending round, various estimates of expenditure are produced; quite a lot are negotiated. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that European contributions remain a pretty uncertain feature throughout most of a public spending round until, eventually, the Treasury experts go nap on the best figure they can do for the coming year on the forecast then coming in. Those forecasts emerge in the Red Book at the time of the Budget, so at the time of writing the Budget, one becomes
  940
  aware of them. I should not normally look at them in close detail until we were finalising the arithmetic in the last week or two.
  Those figures were not in my mind at the time of the letter; they had nothing to do with the letter. A complete red herring has been raised in seizing on the changed estimate—changed from when I produced it last year. Hon. Members know that the figures that I gave in my letter were precise, accurate and unchallengeable, yet some of them have chosen to go off on to another field.
  Mr. Peter Shore: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall conclude my point and then I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  I shall conclude the judgment of the deal at the Edinburgh summit. I have described the political background. This judgment is what, two years later, has given rise to this so-called "crisis debate". [Interruption.] Good heavens. Sudden noise reminds me that some members of the Labour party are here. I do not know why they have come to this debate as their participation in supporting the Edinburgh deal is somewhat difficult to understand. Let me—[Interruption.] Let me just give some objective judgments of the deal at the Edinburgh summit. It was described in the following terms by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames, the then Chancellor:
  "I think it has been an outstandingly successful sutnmit, I can't remember one that has been so successful for many years. I think this is very much due to the negotiating style, the quiet determined diplomacy of John Major, he absolutely excels in this sort of forum and he has delivered a very good deal for Britain on almost every issue."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not say this to embarrass my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames. He has supported the deal throughout, but he keeps being prayed in aid by those who do not.
  My right hon. Friend went on to say:
  "The overall financing agreement is one that is affordable and is much more modest than the highly ambitious plans the Commission put forward which have been scaled back."
  He even said:
  "Everybody had to make some compromises, but at the end of the day, by making switches from one item of the Budget here to another item there we achieved a result which actually goes ahead for seven years on the future finances, it takes us right up to 1999. That's why it was very good news that we succeeded in preserving our rebate, because that is now guaranteed into the next century. Now that is excellent news."
  That is what my right hon. Friend said and I agree with it—[Interruption.]—and there were others.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford rose to ask a question during the statement after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had returned from the Edinburgh summit. At column 29 of Hansard on 14 December 1992, he asked about the Danish opt-out. At that time, my hon. Friend did not utter one word of complaint about the own resources deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) rose to his feet immediately after the Prime Minister had said that the Edinburgh summit had decided that it was not

  941
  appropriate to increase expenditure by a substantial amount, even over the coming years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had just reminded the House that
  "At present, the United Kingdom's net contribution is about £2 billion a year. It would be £4 billion but for the rebate, which remains and—lest there be any doubt—is extended to cover the fresh areas of expenditure that were agreed at Maastricht. In the case of the cohesion fund, for example, that means that we would pay only 5 per cent. of the total cost."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West rose shortly after that. At column 32 of Hansard he did not demur from a word of that. He asked a question about the need for any future ratification of the treaty.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) intervened, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner). Neither raised the slightest murmur about the financial deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) intervened at column 39.
  Mr. Bill Walker rose—
  Hon. Members: Hooray!
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who had the courtesy to rise and to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his negotiating skill.
  Mr. Walker: I meant what I said, as my right hon. and learned Friend believes, and I said what I meant at the time. [Interruption.] Yes, I still mean it and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows that. May I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to paragraph 5 of the explanatory and financial memorandum? It says:
  "The new Decision has to be approved by all member states in accordance with their national procedures before it can enter into force. It will take effect as from 1st January 1995."
  What we are doing in the House is pursuing our normal procedures. Since 1992, there have been changes as a result of our economic difficulties, 17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel and many other aspects. Exposed Community fraud, as a result of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister achieved, has been demonstrated. People such as my constituents and I are concerned about what we shall do about the fraud. That is why they are taking a stand. We are following our normal procedures.
  Mr. Clarke: With respect to my hon. Friend, that really will not do. When the Government of this country enter into political commitments with their allies in such Councils, it is known that the Government will come back and follow our normal parliamentary procedures and seek approval from the House. That is how our parliamentary democracy works. The normal procedure for an hon. Member who supports the Government is to support a settlement upon which he congratulated the Prime Minister at the time he brought it back.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment after I have referred to one more of my colleagues.
  One Euro-sceptic Member of Parliament queried the cost. Only one Member of Parliament in the entire House cast any question on the financial deal at the time. That
  942
  person was my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). She was the only person to complain about what she called
  the massive increase in taxation … which will be necessary to pay for that money".—[Official Report, 14 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 31–35.]
  She complained at the time, so it is to her, the only person to see anything wrong at the time, to whom I turn to continue to explain what I hope are her last doubts about the £75 million next year that she objects to paying.
  Mr. Shore rose—
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a second. I give way to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) first.
  Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that the arithmetic in this matter is pretty important and his credentials in this matter are not exactly improved by the correction of £732 million that he had to make to.this year's estimate. However, whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman may argue and reason in claiming that this year's additional expenditure is likely to be only £75 million, what assumptions has he made that lead him to the derisory figure of £250 million in six years' time? What assumptions has he made, crucially, about United Kingdom and Community growth rates during that period? The whole own resource ceiling is based entirely on the percentage of achieved gross domestic product.
  Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman was in government long enough to know that when we look back at the history of predictions of net contributions to the European Community, it is clear that they veer about, year in and year out in the Red Book, as I have described. That is not usually put down to the individual Chancellor of the Exchequer having changed the figures. In fact, the estimates that I produced last week are lower than the estimates that we gave in 1991 and in 1992, as I have already described.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that the arithmetic matters. The certainty is that the ceiling will move in steady stages from its present 1.20 per cent. of gross national product to 1.27 per cent. of GNP by 1999. The assumptions that we have made in trying to put a cash figure on that, to make it cornparable with other public spending figures, are 21/2 per cent. inflation and 21/2 per cent. growth in GNP. At the moment, we are becoming more prosperous more rapidly than any of our partners in the European Union. As our GNP goes up, that has the effect of putting up our contributions.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate how much we enjoyed his knock-about performance on the announcement at the Edinburgh summit? Does he appreciate that he has already demonstrated that the figures are very complex and that there are a number of different assumptions about them? It was silly for some people to greet them with sycophantic approval. It would also have been silly to greet them with open disapproval without knowing what they were. Surely, on reflection, my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that it was better simply to wait until the full figures emerged and to hope at least that the rights of

  943
  Members of Parliament would be respected when Members of Parliament were trying carefully and sensibly to analyse what was done and what was asked for.
  Mr. Clarke: I really must put it to my hon. Friend that we have got into the debate now, and so far, it seems to me, no one has challenged my figure of around £75 million for next year. It remains absolutely incontrovertible. My hon. Friend at least, I certainly agree, understands the Red Book when the Chancellor produces it, so he would understand the figures when they are produced. He really is being disingenuous in saying that we would have avoided this confusion if I had saved them until tomorrow as opposed to producing them last week. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that, had I produced them tomorrow, he and his hon. Friends would have gone straight to them and again done what they did last week—tried to pretend that a totally different figure about a totally different estimate casts doubt upon my wholly accurate figure of £75 million for next year.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Should we add the name of the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) to the list of Conservative dissidents? In 1988, when a very similar Bill was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman tabled a series of wrecking amendments. The right hon. Gentleman is now a member of the Cabinet. Is he a member of the Cabinet because his views on European finance have changed, or is he a member of the Cabinet because his views on European finance have not changed?
  Mr. Clarke: In 1988, we had a different Bill and a much more expensive deal; a much more significant increase in the British contribution than the one in 1992 that we are now facing. I say to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), as I say to most members of the Labour party, that I continue to wonder what irrelevances they are going to introduce to intervene in the debate. The truth is that they are cynically listening to a debate on a Bill which they support, and whose objectives they have never demurred from, but which they intend to vote against, presumably because they have tabled a wholly wrecking amendment at the request of whichever of my hon. Friends they can get to vote against it.
  Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: Let me proceed a little.
  Let me refer to the doubts that have been raised by some of my hon. Friends about, perhaps, agriculture and, perhaps, fraud and poor value for money, which, certainly, it is sensible for the House to address at a time when we have the chance of considering the overall cost by way of net contribution of our membership of the Union. Agricultural spending is referred to in the Opposition's amendment, although, as far as I can see, with no proposals for reform put forward by them.
  Agricultural spending still covers about 50 per cent. of all European spending, but, since 1988, it has been declining. We have a so-called agricultural guideline, which certainly should not be broken. I agree with my hon. Friends who say, "Well, we wait to see what happens." [Interruption,] Spending is.in the control of Finance Ministers. I assure my hon. Friend the Member
  944
  for Southend, East that Finance Ministers are keen on the Edinburgh ceilings and keen on the agricultural guideline. That guideline has already ensured that agriculture is taking a steadily declining share of the total. It took 70 per cent. of the total in 1988, it takes 50 per cent. now, and that proportion will fall, making room for the structural funds and the third-country payments to which I have already referred.
  The proposition on the table about agriculture at the 1992 Edinburgh summit, and again under discussion during 1993, was that the agricultural guideline should actually be increased by 1.5 billion ecu. That proposition was rejected by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and was successfully fought off by him. Because of GATT and the reforms of the common agricultural policy in 1992, agricultural policy will be less dependent on export subsidies and storage costs. Those are the sectors that have been notoriously vulnerable to fraud, and the future shape of agricultural policy should lessen itself to fraud. However, fraud is an extremely important and serious matter.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), because he is usually critical of the common agricultural policy and its expenditure. So am I and so are the Government. We had an important reform in 1992. We are now seeing a decline in the agricultural budget, and we are shall tighten up on fraud in that budget, as I shall explain in a moment.
  Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way. In that context, will he confirm that between 1992 and 1995 common agricultural policy expenditure under his Government has increased from £21 billion to almost £27 billion—an increase of 25 per cent?
  Mr. Clarke: That is part of the 1992 reforms, which reduced the surpluses and the costs to consumers and, I agree, certainly gave rise to some compensatory costs for farmers. I must confess that I have no idea what the Labour party's policy on common agricultural policy reform is, but I assume that Labour's spokesperson in 1992, whoever it was, accepted that the very substantial reforms which my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, took through during our presidency were a considerable net economic benefit to this country. We must continue to go down that road, and the present guidelines reduce the proportion of the total that is likely to go on agriculture.
  Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in the last year for which we were solely responsible for agricultural support, the cost was about 1.2 per cent. of our gross national product, and it is now well under 0.5 per cent.? Is not it also true that we are having so much difficulty with the figures now because the enormous potential increase in our contribution stems exactly from the very success of the club for which this is the subscription?
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend on his second point and I am grateful to him for the figures that he gave, which I shall check. He is certainly correct.
  Some of the recent publicity about the so-called cost of the European Union has included calculations that assume that we should not have any system of agricultural support

  945
  if we were not a member of the European Union. My hon. Friend and I are just about old enough to remember that we had a very bad and expensive form of agricultural support before we joined the European Union. He and I both represent farmers in our constituencies and we are committed to a continuing element of agricultural support in the future. I have described how that support has been reformed and improved and how it is now reducing as a proportion of total expenditure.
  I shall move on to the subject of fraud after one more intervention.
  Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): If the Chancellor is so confident about the case that he is putting about the Edinburgh summit, why did the Government feel obliged to make this an issue of confidence? It was the Chancellor who raised the stakes in the debate in a quite spectacular manner—of course, no doubt in a totally loyal fashion. If there is a separate vote next week about VAT on fuel, will that also be an issue of confidence and if not, why not?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall come to the question of confidence and the stakes of this bet, which it is a certainty we shall win, in a few moments. If I have to address the hon. Gentleman about the British constitution and our perfectly commonsense interpretation of it, I shall do so in due course.
  I shall deal first with the question of fraud that my right hon. and hon. Friends have raised. We have been giving the highest priority to tackling fraud and getting better value for money—an even bigger problem— over the past year or two, and we have made substantial progress.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way when I have explained our current position. The House must understand that we are not the only member state concerned about fraud. The fact is that our Danish, Dutch and German colleagues, to name but a few, are equally aroused about it. It is as important to their political debate as it is to ours, as I know from the frequent discussions that we have on the subject when I attend the Council of Finance Ministers.
  But it is the British Government who have made most.of the running in recent years and it is the British Government who have contributed the most tangible changes that will produce an improvement inside the Union. A great deal has been done, but there is a great deal more to do.
  Any fraud is unacceptable when public or any other money is involved. The present level of fraud is excessive, but I say again to the House that it does not improve public debate or the appreciation of what can be done to whip up the debate on the subject by way of the grotesque exaggeration that we have heard in the past week. The ridiculous figure of £6 billion worth of fraud is bandied about in the BBC and sections of the press, and by some of my hon. Friends. As far as I am aware, it has not the slightest factual basis.
  There was once a German academic who tried to produce the figure as a result of a study that he had done of the beef regime. It does not stand up to the slightest examination. I trust that when we debate the matter today, people will not exaggerate the extent of fraud by at least 10 times.
  946
  As I said, no fraud is acceptable. All fraud is serious. So let me refer to what has been done in the past two years or so since the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. The Maastricht treaty has so far made the biggest changes.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend was not the most famous supporter of that treaty, but I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House why he allowed the Italians to get away with the milk quota scam, which cost £500 million? They grossly exceeded their milk quotas deliberately and then blackmailed the Community, saying that they would not implement the Edinburgh summit proposals unless we gave in. Why, if my right hon. and learned Friend and Her Majesty's Government are so keen on eliminating fraud within the Community, did they give in in that way?
  Mr. Clarke: It is untrue that I gave in. I shall deal with Italian milk quotas, in which suddenly everyone has taken a great interest in the past fortnight. Most of the people who talk about milk quotas have not the first idea what they are talking about. I shall deal with the Italian milk quota settlement before I sit down because I have had enough of the allegations made about it both by my hon. Friends and by the press. The allegation that I backed down on that matter is as untrue as the ridiculous £6 billion figure for fraud that I have just described.
  I shall first deal with the Maastricht treaty changes and what is happening now. The treaty gives the Court of Auditors greatly increased status and powers compared with those that the body previously had. The irony is that the new, stronger Court of Auditors, which produced last week's report on the 1993 budget, gave the opportunity to every enemy of the European Union suddenly to claim that it was corrupt to the core because at last they had the material, which they then grossly exaggerated. That gave rise to the allegations.
  The Court of Auditors now has the power to take the Commission or other institutions of the Union to the.European Court of Justice if it needs to do so to get action taken on its reports. The Council of Ministers and the European Parliament have also been given extra powers to hold the Commission to account for the defects disclosed by the Court of Auditors reports. The Council of Ministers and the European Parliament are now doing that for the 1992 budget.
  The British took the lead at a Council of Finance Ministers, which demanded that, in the light of the 1992 report, in future we should have prior approval of projects, target setting for results in terms of value for money, monitoring and evaluation of spending. That put in place the type of procedures that accompany good government in this country. The European Parliament is demanding action on milk quotas, tobacco and the use of anti-fraud staff. It is also getting a response.
  Since 1992 there has been a Commissioner personally responsible for action against fraud. It is at present a German Commissioner and is soon to be a Swedish Commissioner. Both come from countries as keen to cut fraud in parts of the Union as we are in the British Parliament. There is now a unit that deals with fraud—

  947
  the so-called flying squad—currently headed by a Dane. That so far is good enough, but the British Government wish and intend to go further.
  Both the British Government and the Commission have made further proposals for Community-wide action and stronger criminal penalties for those who are guilty of fraud involving Community funds. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has put forward the British proposal that member states should tighten penalties for Community fraud and that it should be a criminal, imprisonable and extraditable offence. The Commission has responded with, if anything, even stronger suggestions of its own. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend or another Home Office Minister will discuss the matter at the Council of Interior Ministers later this week and that proposals will soon be put in place.
  Fraud is a serious matter. That is not anything that divides any Members in the House one from another. At last—especially since 1992, Maastricht and Edinburgh—we have in place the necessary structures to tackle fraud. The British Government will remain among the most determined to ensure that the structures are acted on and produce results.
  More proposals will be put forward at the next European summit in Essen. For example, we might propose independent inspection of the vetting of claims by some national agencies because some member states are not good at vetting the claims that they put forward.
  I hope that when we make those proposals and when we strengthen what we have done in the past two years, no Members of the House will say that we are allowing European interference in this country, appointing Euro-snoopers and making Euro-laws. We are strengthening the action that can been taken against fraud because it is absolutely essential that we get value for money out of the budget.
  Mr. Cash: I must ask my right hon. and learned Friend, in a friendly spirit, whether he intends to make a statement on the proposal in my amendment, which has not been selected, that the Public Accounts Committee could take a greater interest in the issue, given the fact that, under the Maastricht arrangements and previously, it was stated that Conservative Members wanted greater enhancement of the powers of national Parliaments.
  Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General have access to information that the Court of Auditors, the Commission and member states receive. The PAC does a very good job, but I am dubious about how much information it would have about the Yugoslav maize scam, which was detected in Greece some time ago. A serious point lies behind my hon. Friend's amendment—how we tackle fraud.
  I was describing the way in which we are putting into place in.Europe—largely at Britain's behest, as was the case when we negotiated Maastricht—the sort of arrangements that British politicians would recognise as likely to detect fraud at member state level, or when there is carelessness at Commission level.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: May I keep my promise to return to the subject of the Italian milk quotas? The basis on which the
  948
  own resources decisions proceeded was finally unlocked at the Council of Finance Ministers, when I settled a series of actions that turned around the Italian and Spanish milk quotas from 1988 onwards. The British Government had participated in those court actions precisely to ensure that people were not allowed to escape with the underpayment of penalties, which might otherwise have occurred.
  The Italians and Spanish had exceeded their milk quotas for a number of years and had not collected the penalties from their farmers, as other members, such as the Germans, Belgians and British, had done. When the matter finally came to a head, the Commission purported to backdate the quotas to those member states, because many Agriculture Ministers agreed that mistakes had been made in calculating the exact milk production of those countries. The Commission calculated how much Italy and Spain should pay to the Union and tried to backdate the increased quotas. I have put those facts on the record because some factual description of the saga is required.
  What did the various court actions lead to? The Commission proposed to sort out the problem by making the Italians and Spanish repay 2.1 becu—£1.6 billion—as a penalty. They said no, went to court and said that they should not have to pay anything as it had all been a mistake and they were not liable for £1.6 billion. The British went to court to argue that the Commission should not backdate the quota and that the two countries should pay more penalties.
  When we discussed the matter, the first question was who would win in court. I have been involved in enough court actions to know that no one can be certain of that, least of all in the European Court of Justice. Had we gone to court and won the point of principle, we should still have left the Commission to calculate the penalties. There was no reason at all to believe that had we won the action, the Commission would have assessed the penalties at anything more than the 2.1 becu, or £1.6 billion, which it was already happy to take. The settlement that we got obliged the payment of penalties of 3.2 becu, an increase above the Commission's statement of 1.1 becu. The British action in court and our position at the Council of Finance Ministers increased the penalties by £860 million, over and above anything that would otherwise have been achieved.
  We took that action because we insisted that the penalties should not be waived by the Commission in those circumstances. My Italian and Spanish colleagues had to go back to their Parliaments and explain why, between the two of them, £860 million had been added to the penalties imposed upon them for failing to enforce milk quotas. That £860 million was a cost imposed by the British Government for their seeking to evade the operation of milk quotas that other people had.
  That action, which gave rise to the biggest penalties in the history of agriculture in the European Union, is typical of the action that the Government will take on fraud in the future. That is why I suggest to the House that the addition to our net contributions is a triumph of negotiation. It is a contribution that we should pay on top of our existing contributions to continue to get benefits from the Union.

  949
  I have been asked why that is a matter of confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend. I am now about to conclude. It is time for us to find out what the Labour party is here for.
  On the question of confidence, I repeat to the House what I said when I was giving a press conference about the figures that I produced last week. It seems to me to be plain and obvious that any Government who give a solemn undertaking in international negotiations, enter into political commitments and require money to support those commitments, must come back and ask the House to endorse that. If the House will not vote in favour of that money, the Government will have lost the confidence of Parliament. [Interruption.] It is not a ploy, nor a policy decision. It is plain and obvious common sense.
  The role of this Parliament will be diminished if a new rule is invented for the short-term and expedient reasons given by some Opposition Members that the Government can be defeated on a major international obligation and then carry on with a reshuffle as if nothing had happened. It is precisely the power of Parliament that if Parliament will not vote in favour of the money and will not enable the Government to honour their solemn international commitments, the Government will have lost the confidence of the House and they must fall. That seems to be obvious, and to take any other course would undermine parliamentary democracy and not improve it.
  That is the only issue which has moved the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party to want to vote against the own resources decision.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Hon. Members must now wait for their speeches to make their points.
  The deal was not only not criticised by anybody at the time—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay—fbut it has been supported in full by the Labour party and by the Liberal Democrat party ever since it was entered into. If we are talking about parliamentary procedure, and if hon. Members are to raise points of order about respect for Parliament as a result of newspaper reports that they have read at the weekend, what respect for Parliament is created by the official Opposition and the third-biggest party standing on their heads and voting against every principle and statement that they have ever propounded on Edinburgh at the request of some of my right hon and hon. Friends?
  I ask the Opposition to go away. They have no part to play in the debate. We know their views. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will tell them when to come back and which way to vote. He will tell them whether they are needed or not.
  The Opposition are following a totally dishonourable course in seeking to wreck a deal that was a superb negotiating triumph at the time. When the House returns to common sense, it will ratify that deal when it gives the Bill a Second Reading tonight.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House believes that the European Communities (Finance) Bill is not an acceptable measure as it increases United Kingdom contributions to the European Union without action by Her Majesty's Government to cut fraud and waste in Europe or to reduce expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy."
  The case for the amendment has been enhanced by the muddle created by the Chancellor this afternoon over the figures which he has produced, and by his failure to convince and explain them adequately to the House. We know that the Chancellor did not read the Maastricht treaty. Now we know that he cannot remember when he read what were perhaps the most controversial estimates of his public expenditure statement. It does the Chancellor no credit to respond to his own failure by spending a good deal of his speech attacking many Conservative Back Benchers.
  In the recent history of the House, there have been many votes of confidence called by Prime Ministers to determine the fate of their Government. In every one of them, the Prime Minister of the day has come to the House, stood at the Dispatch Box and spoken in defence of his Ministers, Cabinet and Government. That is until today.
  The Prime Minister tells us that he attaches vital importance to the debate. He has told the House that, for him, it is a matter of confidence and that every clause is a vote of confidence. He has told the country that it is a matter on which not just he, but the whole Government would resign. No compromise, no last-minute shuffling of leaders—it is all or nothing. But the man who has asked for that vote of confidence from the House has not the confidence to stand up in the House to ask for that vote.
  The House has seen many historic votes of confidence. But when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) faced a vote of confidence over Europe, he did not delegate that matter to Anthony Barber. When Macmillan faced a vote of confidence after sacking half his Cabinet—some said the wrong half—he did not sit it out and simply call on Selwyn-Lloyd to stand at the Dispatch Box. I ask the House; would Lady Thatcher, in similar circumstances to today's, have sent along Sir Geoffrey Howe to defend her?
  The Prime Minister has chosen to exercise his right to silence in the debate, and we all know the inference from insisting on one's right to silence which the Home Secretary would encourage us to draw. It is rather as if the grand old Duke of York had marched his men up to the top of hill, made his excuses and left. If I may recall a previous European encounter in which a leader sought to summon up the spirits of his country, it is as if the Prime Minister had said, "Once more into the breach, dear friends. But I am sorry, I will not be leading you myself."

  We have an unprecedented vote of confidence called the day before the Budget on every clause and every detail of the Bill. There has been panic, and the ultimatum of the confidence vote. The scale of the threat and this bizarre sequence of events can be explained by one thing and one thing only; not by any reference to the national interest and not by looking at the needs of the British economy and the British people, but by the fact that it is in accordance with the imperatives exercised by the bitter

  951
  feuding inside the Conservative party. The divisions, as we see this afternoon, are rapidly becoming irreconcilable and are now fracturing a once-great party.
  Just as the imperatives arising from that disunity have forced the Prime Minister to adopt an absurd stand over the confidence vote, the Prime Minister has allowed himself to be forced into making every clause in the Bill a matter of confidence. This must be a no-change Bill; a Bill that the Prime Minister tells us is somehow beyond improvement. What a ridiculous position the Prime Minister has put himself in. He asks us to adopt a test which, if applied to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—which the House chose to amend eight times during 12 months—would have, under the new Prime Ministerial diktat, occasioned general election after general election during the past year. If such a test were to be applied—as the Prime Minister says—to every Finance Bill, it would have meant last year alone, with three amendments to the Finance Bill accepted, three dissolutions of Parliament.
  The Prime Minister should reconsider his absurd view that strength and authority would come from an unchanged Bill. The best evidence of strength and authority would be a better Bill, because I believe that a majority in the House want new measures to be included in the Bill to tackle waste, fraud and the cost of the CAP. Not only is a majority in the House in favour of that, but, as the custodian of public finance, the House has a duty to demand action as a result of the report by the president of the Court of Auditors, which was published since the Edinburgh summit.
  On Thursday, the Chancellor gave the House revised figures relating to our contributions to the European Community. Last week, an extra £700 million was added to our budget contributions—not to the contributions made in 1988 or 1989, nor to contributions forecast long into the future, but to our contributions this year. Surely we deserve a better explanation than we have had from the Chancellor this afternoon, especially when we were told 18 months ago that our contributions were to be £2.6 billion, but then that they were to be halved to £1.3 billion. That reduction represented savings as vast as one third of the public spending cuts that the Chancellor announced in the Budget. Why were we not told earlier that the contribution had been revised from £1.7 billion to £2.4 billion?
  I must tell the Chancellor that this is not a technical matter. It goes right to the heart of the debate about our contributions to the European Community. We are talking about the bottom line in terms of Britain's payments to the Community. It is not a technical matter, because the failure to answer our questions and the fact that £700 million more is to be paid raises questions about what the Government are doing about waste, fraud, the expenditure on the CAP and costs that continue to rise.
  Mr. James Clappison: Talking about the bottom line, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that if he had his way, the one thing that we could be sure of is that our contributions would be far higher because of the massive spending demands of the Labour party? Whatever
  952
  the contributions made by a Labour Government, they would be infinitely higher than the figure given by the Chancellor.
  Mr. Brown: We have never supported the increasing costs of the CAP, which have risen under the Government. The hon. Gentleman will have a difficult job explaining to his constituents that he opposed an amendment that called for further action on waste, fraud and the costs of the CAP. He has told his constituents that combating such fraud and waste is exactly what he would do in the House, but tonight he will vote against a proposal designed to do just that.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the Labour party has always supported improvements to the CAP, can he explain why his party either abstained on or opposed such important reforms, and did not support them, when they were introduced in December 1991?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to know whether we abstained or opposed, but the fact is that we have been consistent opponents of the CAP.
  When the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food returned to the House after the debates on the MacSharry proposals, he commended them to the House as the proposals of the British Government. Even then, however, we were calling for continual major reform of the CAP. If Conservative Members think that the CAP, which is costing ordinary people £20 more in their food bills—it is a tax on food, unfair to the development of eastern Europe and unfair to the third world—is in any way still defensible, they should listen to their constituents, who would tell them the exact opposite.
  It is important to consider the waste and fraud in the Community budget and the recent report of the president of the Court of Auditors. That report is a sorry catalogue of abuse and lack of accountability which cries out for action. However, today, yet again, the Prime Minister has set himself against any amendment that would give the House greater powers of accountability to consider such waste.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a lack of manpower resources in the Commission to investigate such fraud? Does he agree that the effect of his amendment, if passed, would be to wreck the Bill and deny those resources to tackle fraud?
  Mr. Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that not enough work is done in the Community to combat fraud, which undoubtedly exists. Let me remind him that on 1 September 1993 a Treasury Minister said:
  "It is correct that the UK does not take up all the money that the Commission allocates us for anti-fraud work."
  The hon. Gentleman may wish to allocate responsibility to the European Commission, but mistakes made by the Treasury have prevented us from taking up the money available to deal with fraud.
  The intervention from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is extremely helpful, because, yesterday, I was given figures about the take-up of money by Britain for anti-fraud work relating to the CAP. In 1991, the European Community made available to Britain 1.5 million ecu for anti-fraud work, but the British Government took up not a penny; in 1992, 1.4 million ecu

  953
  were available, but 80 per cent. of that sum was not taken up; in 1993, 92 per cent. of the available money was not taken up. In total, just 11 per cent. of the amount available to deal with anti-fraud was—
  Mr. David Shaw: We are more honest than others in the Community.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has raised another issue, but I have already pointed out that we do not take up the money available for anti-fraud work. The hon. Gentleman should criticise the Chancellor for that. I accept that Britain is not the worst when it comes to fraud, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not read the Court of Auditors report, because the president was not entirely pleased with what was happening here. He noted that mechanisms were not in place for dealing with both the audit and the monitoring of customs fraud. The hon. Gentleman may wish to direct some of his questions to the Chancellor concerning the failures of the Government, as reported by the president of the Court of Auditors.
  Let us be clear about the waste and the fraud and why the Government should be criticised for failing to act. We know about the celebrated incident of the £1 billion wasted on digging up vineyards, only to find that, at the end of it, the output of wine in the Community had increased by 20 per cent. The Court of Auditors also reported that one department had been giving grants to dig up the vineyards while another had given grants to replant them. We also know that grants were made to start projects that had already been completed; that grants intended for redundant workers went to people whose jobs were not at risk; and companies which were given other grants for a particular job were then given a grant for auditing their own accounts. I believe that the majority of hon. Members would want more done to combat such fraud.
  When the Foreign Secretary praised the Court of Auditors for the report, perhaps he already knew about the high standards of hospitality offered by its president at its launch. Journalists and officials discussed the waste and corruption in the Euro gravy train while they were served caviar, smoked salmon, canapes and pâté de foie gras washed down with champagne. No doubt each and every guest was determined to do as much as possible in the time available to diminish the salmon mountain and the champagne lake.
  Is not it absurd that a reasonable amendment, which gives the House more power to monitor such abuses—something that Conservative Members believe is necessary in principle—will not be accepted by the Prime Minister because he has made a test of strength not out of getting the best Bill, not out of answering the real needs in relation to the European Community, but out of getting the Bill through unchanged, no matter the opinion of the House?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is giving the impression that his amendment is merely designed to cut down on the quantity of canapes consumed and to cut agricultural spending a bit. I trust that he will accept that his amendment would wreck the Second Reading of the Bill; stop it from proceeding and prevent us from being able to endorse the Edinburgh deal. That would put us in breach of our treaty obligations to other members of the
  954
  European Union. Why is he putting forward an amendment that does that when he supports the deal that we have done?
  Mr. Brown: Of course the Government could bring the Bill back with the amendment that we put forward, but it is the Prime Minister who has made this evening's vote a vote of confidence. It is the Prime Minister who is trying to dragoon his troops into the Lobby. It is the Prime Minister who is responsible for the issue becoming more controversial than it need be. However, if he is seeking to pass an unchanged Bill through the House, he does not understand the feelings of the country about waste and fraud, and about what is happening to the common agricultural policy.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has my hon. Friend noted that the Chancellor has just claimed that failure to pass the Second Reading tonight would be a breach of treaty commitment? Does he share with me the impression that the Chancellor admitted that he has not read it, because is it not a fact that article 201 of the union treaty gives this Parliament an explicit right to agree or disagree with the provisional agreement made in Edinburgh two years ago?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose erudition in those matters is well known. I heard the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday repeating the words that the Chancellor said today: that we had to honour obligations that were made internationally and we could not be put off by a minority of dissidents in the House. The very Chief Secretary who says that this year was the person who voted against an analogous Bill as recently as a few years ago. [Interruption.] He does not seem to understand that that was also a negotiated treaty that he was asking the House to vote against.
  What about the role of the House?
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Brown: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know on which side of the debate the hon. Gentleman is, but I will give way to him because of his well-known interest in agriculture.
  Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party said a word against the Edinburgh agreement when it was concluded? Is it not amazingly cynical to come to the House with an amendment designed to prevent the Government front implementing an international obligation to which the hon. Gentleman never objected at the time? Will not that be regarded as utterly cynical throughout Europe?
  Mr. Brown: But if I may say so in language that 1 think that the hon. Gentleman would understand, we have always called for a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. I think that the hon. Gentleman, with his specialist knowledge, understands that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Brown: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have made it clear from the opposition Benches that amendments that deal with the problems of waste and fraud in the European Community can,I believe, command a majority throughout the House and that it is ridiculous for the Prime Minister to demand an unchanged Bill when,by

  955
  debate and discussion and by the House performing its proper duties supervising the finances of the Government, we can obtain a better Bill. We not only—
  Sir Terence Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way because of seniority.
  Sir Terence Higgins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he make it absolutely clear to the House that, if his amendment is carried, he believes that the Bill will have obtained a Second Reading? Secondly, since he argues for amendments, can we understand that he proposes to table amendments in Committee, both on agriculture and on fraud, which would have any effect in reality on those two problems?
  Mr. Brown: The Government could accept our amendment now and let us deal with the questions of waste, fraud and the common agricultural policy. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Government can accept our amendment. They could bring back the Bill after they had debated it this evening. It is not I but the Prime Minister who has made it an issue of confidence to be dealt with at 10 o'clock this evening.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is important that the hon. Gentleman knows what he is voting about. His amendment would delete everything after the word "That" and would deny the Bill a Second Reading. It would substitute for it his form of words about fraud and agriculture, but the Bill would be defeated. It would not be possible for the Government to bring back the Bill in the same Session of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is voting to defeat a Bill whose objectives he supports, and he does not even seem to realise that that is what he is doing.
  Mr. Brown: I repeat, it is the Prime Minister who has made that an issue of confidence this evening. The Government could bring back the Bill, with the changes that we are recommending in it, if they chose to do so, but it is the Prime Minister who has chosen to make it an issue of confidence, and it is the Prime Minister who would pay the price as a result.
  I shall now discuss the common agricultural policy. When even the National Farmers Union now calls for fundamental reform, when the Country Landowners Association has recently submitted a document calling for reform, when the wasteful CAP is a tax on food and a barrier to fair trade—since 1979, the cost of the CAP has increased dramatically—I ask Members on the Conservative Benches how they can vote tonight for no further action against a system of open-ended state intervention, the export subsidies that go with it and its inviolability.
  The Prime Minister is elevating into a vote of confidence the lack of amendment to the Bill. Since the Edinburgh summit, what has happened to the Community agricultural policy and why is action now needed? Expenditure on the common agricultural policy continues to increase—despite the impression that the Chancellor gave—and in order to meet the guidelines, we are witnessing what the Senior Controller of European Spending, in talks that he has had, has called, "creative
  956
  accounting". The only way that he could meet the ceiling, as he said himself, was by what he called "certain budgetary devices"—counting the 1994 payments against the 1993 budget, closing the budget a year early or further delaying payments of credits to member states in one year. Having failed to condone the profligacy, we are being asked to condone the rigging of the balance sheets of the common agricultural policy, yet the Prime Minister would countenance no amendment related to that in the Bill.
  What of this year's budget for the common agricultural policy? Of course there are now budget corrective measures if there is an overspend; of course the Commission cannot switch resources between sectors; but was not "Anglo Europe" right to report, on the use of budgetary devices for this year's budget:
  "The figures in the official draft budget are merely juggled under the new rectifying letter"?
  Surely it is right that the House should insist, when agricultural spending continues to increase—it will increase by £3 billion in coming years, a 10 per cent. increase despite all the reforms that have been made—that the House should be in a greater position to scrutinise the Executive with regard to that matter.
  Mr. David Howell rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am not giving way again.
  Let us consider the tobacco regime, costing more than £1 billion a year, while we spend little on health education. In a previous debate, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
  "It is not feasible to end tobacco production and support for it".
  We are entitled to say, about something from which we obtain no benefit, when are talking about the uneconomical production of the most unsmokable and the most unhealthy cigarettes, that the Prime Minister is wrong to elevate the sanctity of the Bill, without amendment to tackle those abuses, into a vote of confidence.
  Despite everything that the Chancellor said this afternoon, this is the Government whose proposals on waste, on fraud and on the common agricultural policy cannot command the weight that they need and the influence that they should have in the European Community, because all political credit is being used up by the Government in fighting the social chapter, fighting for opt-outs, fighting European integration and losing influence in Europe as a result, simply because of the divisions in the Tory party.
  The Government are fighting battles in Europe that they cannot win. Following battle after battle over the social chapter, they have persuaded no other country, no other entrant country, no other right-wing leader in Europe except Monsieur le Pen and not even many Conservative Members of the European Parliament. They now find that more than 50 of the top 100 British companies are implementing the social chapter anyway.
  A no-change Bill, this vote a day before the Budget, the nature of the vote itself—a confidence vote without the Prime Minister being willing to appear in the House—and the edifice of absurdity that the handling of the Bill now represents, is predicated on the utter precariousness of the Conservative party's leadership and its control of the party.

  957
  What is the Prime Minister asking us to have confidence in? What is the Government's European policy now? What is their ability to handle the issue of Europe on its merits? What is that European policy? The Conservative party has a vice-chairman who has to resign for attacking our European neighbours in the most infantile of terms, who says he wants Britain out of Europe. It has a deputy chairman who states explicitly that every European decision must involve not examining the national interest, but appeasing party dissidents: the party must therefore remain more Euro-sceptic than Labour—as the deputy chairman has said—simply to achieve unity.
  We are asked to have confidence in the Government's European policy as a result of all that. Their Chief Secretary, a signatory to the Bill, spent most of the 1980s opposing the very measures for which he now asks us to vote. Divisions on European policy are at the very heart of the Cabinet. The moment the Chancellor calls for convergence in Europe, the Secretary of State for Employment says that important national differences must be recognised; when the Chancellor says that he favours co-operation on exchange rates, the Employment Secretary wants to call for free floating; when the Chancellor says that he favours monetary union in principle, the Employment Secretary and a substantial section of the Cabinet say that it will mean "giving up the government" of the United Kingdom, and that that is the impossible.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way once more.
  Mr. Cormack: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, very simply, whether he agrees with what was agreed at Edinburgh in 1992?
  Mr. Brown: We made our position absolutely clear at the time. We made it clear that we supported the Edinburgh agreement. What we will not support is a failure on the part of the House, and an unwillingness on the part of the Prime Minister, to consider any amendments to the Bill that deal with fraud, waste and the common agricultural policy. I think that, when he returns to his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will hear very clearly from his constituents that they, too, want action against waste, fraud and the CAP.
  Where is the Prime Minister in all this? Sadly for the Prime Minister—sadly for the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) thinks that I have nothing to say about the Prime Minister; he is mistaken.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will not give way—although I am interested to note that the Maples memorandum, which was supposed to menace and threaten the Labour party, and suggest ways of shouting us down and silencing us, is now being used to get Conservative Back Benchers into line.
  Where is the Prime Minister at the end of all this? The authority of the Chancellor has been strengthened for a minute, while the authority of the Prime Minister has diminished. The dissidents in the Conservative party began by planning to challenge the Bill; they have ended
  958
  up planning to challenge the Prime Minister, this year or next year. (Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) says that he is not leading the challenge, but I note a great deal of silence on the Bench beside him.
  The Prime Minister has come to the House today in his customary capacity as head of the Government. True to form, he has turned up in person but he is no longer in charge. Once more, he is an onlooker of the great debates that are taking place. When Lady Thatcher resigned, the Conservatives believed that they had ordered the "New Statesman"; instead, they have got the "Spectator".
  In similar circumstances, after meeting his Back Benchers in 1922, Bonar Law said of them:
  "I am their leader; I must follow them."
  The Prime Minister has added another pathetic dimension to his leadership: "I am their leader; I cannot make up my mind which faction to follow."
  In the Conservative party, all options to negotiate in Europe, to influence events, to co-operate for the benefit of Britain and to be genuinely at the heart of Europe have been sacrificed to the overriding pressures of party strife. We have a Chancellor who cannot give us the exact figures in relation to the budget, a Prime Minister who now tells us that we cannot vote for amendments to deal with waste, fraud and the CAP and Conservative Back Benchers who spend all their time talking about the problems of waste and fraud but who will join the Government in the Lobby to vote against an amendment that raises those very issues.
  Such is the tyranny of the factions within the Conservative party, and such is the impotence of the leadership, that the only European policy on which the Conservatives can now agree is to stand apart from Europe. Such is the weakness at the top that the only posture left to the Government in European negotiations is hovering between semi-detachment and complete isolationism. Such is the depth of disunity that they cannot understand that true patriotism—standing up for Britain's interests—means not opting out but co-operating, winning influence and leading to secure the best deals for Britain.
  The Government can no longer speak with a united voice; they can no longer speak for Britain. Their divisions are irreconcilable. They are intellectually bankrupt and politically exhausted. They should go, and go now.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I am told by those who know more about it than I do that the issuing of suicide threats is a classic cry for help. It is in that spirit that I wish to help the Government tonight. In such cases, the key is to keep the potential victim talking, to prevent his mind from turning to any untoward action. Well, there has been a good deal of talking—rather too much, some might say. I am told that the Prime Minister is thinking of reintroducing Budget purdah.
  I am grateful for the effusive thanks delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the role that I took in the Edinburgh negotiations. After the summit, I was happy to commend the deal to colleagues: it was a good deal, and I commend it again.
  The Bill is, essentially, the price that we agreed to pay the Spanish for agreeing to enlargement. The danegeld— if that phrase can be applied to the Spanish—was kept to

  959
  relatively modest proportions. I believe that it would have been difficult to secure a better deal. In the months coming up to the Edinburgh summit, we kept being told that if we did not achieve a new financial perspective, the Community would come to a halt—that it would be unable to function and would run out of money. I must say that I did not find that an altogether convincing threat, and I am sure that the same thought occasionally crossed the mind of the Chancellor when he was dealing with the question of Italian fines on milk quotas.
  The issue that I want to discuss is not the extra cost that the Bill imposes. I want to deal with the question to which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred: what is the true, underlying financial and public expenditure cost of our membership of Europe? What real figure represents the cost of our membership of the Union?
  I want to discuss that matter because I believe that, even after 20 years, our membership of the European Union ought still to be able to be subject to rational analysis and ought still to be discussed in the light of the costs and benefits that result from it.
  Conditions are now very different from those that obtained 20 years ago, when we joined the European Community. We live in a world of very low tariffs. The external tariff of the European Union is less; I believe that the arguments about access to the market, and about inward investment, therefore have much less impact and are less persuasive than was the case 20 years ago. All the time, however, the cost of our membership has been rising.
  People could be forgiven for being confused when they are given so many different figures about both the Bill and the cost of our membership. My good friend Sir Leon Brittan tells us that the cost of the Bill is only the price of a newspaper a day. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury would regard £75 million as something that should be described in quite those terms.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the cost of our membership as being £75 million—he reconfirmed that figure today—rising to £250 million. He also referred to the real cost as being our current net contribution—just over £2 billion in 1993–94, rising to £3.5 billion in 1996–97.
  Mr. Cormack: Would my right hon. Friend agree with our friend Sir Leon Brittan if he were still Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  Mr. Lamont: I am coming on to what I think the costs are. I have no quarrel with what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about the arithmetic of the Bill and I have not implied that I have. I wish to differ with the Chancellor in that I do not believe that the net figures are a measure of the true cost of our membership of the European Union.
  It is an extraordinarily curious argument for Conservatives to say that the cost is what we pay in taxes, minus what we get back in public expenditure. After all, that is like saying that the education service, the national health service or lunch are free. It is like saying that the rate of income tax, which the Chancellor will announce for the year ahead in his Budget and which I suspect will
  960
  remain unchanged at 25p in the pound—although some of my hon. Friends may hope for something else—is not really 25p but 2p in the pound because we receive a lot back in terms of schools, roads, hospitals and the NHS. As I said the other day, the argument about us getting the money back reminds me of the campaign slogan of the mayor of Sao Paulo in Brazil, who said:
  "I steal but I give some back."
  It cannot be disputed that the real cost of European-directed and sponsored programmes is, of course, our gross contribution to the European Community, minus our rebate. That cost could amount to about £6 billion this year, rising to £8 billion at the end of 1996–97. Our net contribution would represent the cost of our membership of the Community if it spent money only on things that our own Government wanted to spend money on. Of course, we know that that is very far from being the case.
  The real public expenditure cost of the European Union, therefore, is somewhere between our net contribution in 1993–94 of £2.1 billion and £6 billion gross, and in 1996 it will be somewhere between the net cost of £3.5 billion and the gross cost minus the rebate of £8 billion. Throughout that period, the real cost of our membership of Europe will be much nearer the higher figure because the vast majority of European Union expenditure goes on things which we do not really want and which the Government would not have chosen to spend money on. Indeed, we know that, as a matter of principle and doctrine, the European Commission will approve expenditure in this country only on things that are additional to what the Government want to spend money on.
  Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way at that point in his interesting analysis, but even his own more pessimistic figures amount to a maximum of about 1 per cent. of gross national product at the end of the period to which he referred. That is the cost of the strength that we gain from being in the European Union, with all the other sovereign countries working together on common issues.
  Mr. Lamont: One per cent. of GNP is a significant sum of money which represents in excess in £6 billion. It is a much larger figure than that quoted in the debate as the cost of our net contribution to and membership of Europe.
  We are told all the time that we get money back, but is that money spent on things that we want it to be spent on? The answer is, broadly, no. I am sure that I am not alone in feeling considerable irritation when I go around the country and see signs with the blue sticker and 12 yellow stars saying, "Funded by the European Union." May I make a suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend? The Government should put a sticker underneath saying, "The European Union has decided to give you three quarters of your money back." It is absurd that we should be made to feel grateful for getting our money back through things that we would not have wanted to spend the money on in the first place.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I want to make a little more progress.
  On the subject of fraud, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to some of the new proposals in the Maastricht treaty and to the

  961
  new unit against fraud which has a Dane in charge. The Dane will have to be good because, in my experience, the European Commission is not interested in fraud and has a considerable antipathy to the Court of Auditors.
  I tried to make the subject of combating fraud one of the themes of the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC. I tried to get the Court of Auditors more involved in the work of European Finance Ministers. On one occasion, I convened a special meeting to discuss the matter. We had before us a Court of Auditors report detailing various frauds, particularly in the common agricultural policy. There was a report about grain being moved from one ship to another in Hamburg harbour and about people pretending that transactions had taken place and receiving money for those bogus transactions. Quite a number of the Ministers did not turn up. I opened the discussion. A large number of Ministers just read their newspapers. No one contributed a word to the discussion and then Mr. Delors attacked me for being political by introducing the subject of the Court of Auditors.
  I remember, as will the Prime Minister, who I know has been rightly concerned about the matter, as was Lady Thatcher, how decisions on aid were made in the Community. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor referred to aid to Russia and to other countries. The big decisions on aid and debt write-off are normally taken after the ECOFIN meeting in the morning, over cigars and port. Those decisions involve billions of ecus. No papers are prepared. I tried hard to take a radical and provocative initiative—to have bits of paper before we made those decisions. Again, that was turned down.
  When European Finance Ministers discussed aid for Russia, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, I remember that the attitude was that the Community had to give aid because it had to play a role in that development. Of course, aid to Russia is important, but, as time went by, there was reason to think that food aid was not necessary because no evidence existed of food shortages in Russia and there had been a good harvest. Even when statistics on the good harvest came in, could we get the European Union to reconsider the aid which had been allocated nine months previously, most of which had been lost in the distribution system or gone to the mafia and which was now unnecessary? No, we could not because Europe had to be seen to be acting and to be political.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Given that there is not much difference between my right hon. Friend and me on the things that he has discussed, I assure him that matters have moved on rather a lot since he was attending the meetings that he described. The Court of Auditors now attends the Council of Finance Ministers with the Commissioner responsible for dealing with fraud, and the Council has asked for individual complaints to be acted on and to be reported. Fraud was twice on the agenda of the Council of Finance Ministers during the German presidency. It will be on the agenda twice during the French presidency.
  Only a month ago, with the assistance of my French colleague, I dropped a proposal for aid to the Ukraine, at a lunch of the kind about which my right hon. Friend rightly complains. The only difference between us is that
  962
  my right hon. Friend described a situation that has improved. He played a large part in the Maastricht treaty that gave the Court of Auditors its additional powers.
  Mr. Lamont: I was not seeking to argue that there was a difference between my right hon. and learned Friend and me on this matter. I wish him all the best in this new climate and new world of interest in fraud and giving value for money. All I can say is that I do not recognise it.
  Value for money will always be difficult to achieve in Europe because money is politics and money is power. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, our money is used to bribe the Greeks, Spaniards, Portuguese and Irish to believe in ever-closer European union.
  Our money is equally used to bribe the regions of individual countries, including the United Kingdom, to believe in Brussels as the giver of aid and succour rather than the central Governments of those countries. In that way, the central Governments of those individual nation states can be made less relevant.
  Europe is an issue that risks splitting the Conservative party, because the party as a whole has not yet accepted that our partners' ambitions are not compatible with Britain's continued ability to govern ourselves as an independent sovereign state. A minority would welcome that development, but for the majority of Conservatives in the House and in the country that outcome would be anathema. If Labour ever formed a Government, it would face precisely the same dilemma.
  The Maastricht compromise reflected in the Bill was accepted by the Conservative party and Parliament for two reasons: it succeeded in delaying some of the most important aspects of European integration and was underpinned by the belief that Maastricht marked the high tide of Euro-federalism. That hope has proved unfounded. Only last week, Mr. van den Broek argued that the next intergovernmental conference should abolish our national veto on future treaty changes. If that were implemented, this country's sovereignty would be gone.
  It is important to recognise that divisive arguments on Europe—of which the costs of membership is an important example, because money is at the heart of the development of Europe—arise from the incompatibility between what is acceptable to Britain and what is acceptable to our partners. That is why this country needs to redefine its relations with Europe on a permanent basis.
  For that reason, I am persuaded that we in this country must consider all options if we cannot negotiate a special economic relationship between Britain and our partners, including even withdrawal. We should not shrink from that logic but ask ourselves what is the best way to preserve our interests and to remove the source of tension with our European partners. The risk that stems from the Government's decision to make the issue one of confidence is that it may give the impression that the Government's overriding priority will be that the House will simply rubber-stamp whatever is agreed in some European town in 1996. I hope and believe that impression is unfounded—but the Government cannot proceed on the basis that we do not know what 1996 will be about and therefore do not need to think about it.
  A conscripted army never fights as well as an army of volunteers, and the Conservative party is an army of volunteers. We should have the confidence to set out the issues and to debate them before our future is thrown in the melting pot in 1996. The Bill is a good deal, but it

  963
  obviously does not address the issues that in time will confront us all.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has enlarged the debate by leaning forward in time to the crucial intergovernmental conference in 1996, which will tilt the balance and either move us decisively in the direction of an unwanted federal state, of which we shall be a province, or bring a halt to the process of integration that has proceeded for the past 30 years.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke well about costs, which go far beyond the minor sums that the Chancellor mentioned in respect of the increase in own resources which is at the heart of the Edinburgh agreement. It is misleading to think that the cost to us is measured by even the so-called net cost of the budget. The net cost is bad enough, having increased from £1,500 million in 1988 to £2,400 million this year. According to the Treasury's own figures, it is due to rise to £3,500 million in 1999, which is a doubling within a decade. That is a huge and unnecessary increase in the net cost—net of all repayments and abatement.
  We should be debating not a Bill to increase Britain's net and gross contributions to the European Union, but how to reduce the increasingly unbearable burden of costs that our membership imposes. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames was right to draw attention not just to net but to gross costs, which are increasing alarmingly. Again using the Treasury's own figures, the gross cost to Britain in 1990 was £6.4 billion. This year, it will be £8.3 billion, and for 1997–98 it will be £10.5 billion. That is a measure of the weight of the burden, which increases with every year that passes.
  I will direct my remarks not to the arithmetic, which has been the subject of considerable exchanges, but to the significance of the Court of Auditors report. It is a long time since December 1992, when the Edinburgh agreement was reached. Not least among events which have occurred since then was the publication only a fortnight ago—unfortunate timing for the Government—of the court's report. The Chancellor claimed that it is slightly more authoritative and penetrating than any report received so far. It is directly relevant to the Bill because it occurs to everyone to question why we should pay the European Union more money before it has put right its own waste, incompetence and fraud.
  The figure of £6 billion does not relate just to fraud—that is only a component—but also to waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) gave many examples of the magnitude of the waste involved, such as vineyards being planted and then uprooted, and all kinds of false payments being made under the common agricultural policy.
  It would be a disgrace if we did not insist on remedial action before additional tax revenues for the EU are approved. It is the oldest maxim of parliamentary government that grievances should be redressed before
  964
  supply is granted. The need for redress is clear, and the House should face the fact that there will be no redress unless supply is withheld.
  Mr. Dykes: Obviously, fraud must be tackled everywhere, both in the Union and in the member states, but is not the right hon. Gentleman being unusually illogical? In this country we accept that there is a considerable amount of social security fraud; it is estimated at more than £4 billion annually, I believe. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that social security payments should be suspended to all other recipients pending the resolution of that problem? That is exactly the same ridiculous argument.
  Mr. Shore: No. I said that there are very great differences.
  Let us return to the relevance of the Bill. The Chancellor, of course, challenges the figure of £6 billion which, if it is anything like the truth, is twice the total amount that the Community will raise—not just in Britain, but throughout the Community—from the addition to own resources. It will be an addition of some £3,000 million in increased expenditure. Many people would say that gross incompetence, waste and fraud amount to twice that figure. It would indeed be a disgrace if we did not try to put that matter right first.
  Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shore: No.
  I now add a point about which the House has not been aware so far: the Community's reaction to the Court of Auditors' report. The Commission's reaction has been almost as remarkable as the contents of the report itself. I read now from the European Community's "Week in Europe" dated 24 November 1994:
  "Commission Secretary General David Williamson has rejected media allegations that fraud was widespread in European Budgetary spending. Commenting on the recent Court of Auditor's report he said the document was not about fraud but about financial management. It mentioned fraud only once in its 484 pages referring to just one transaction in Denmark."
  That was the Secretary-General of the European Commission responding to a tremendous indictment of the Community's lack of effective control over budgetary spending, waste and fraud.
  What did the Auditors' report say? I quote from its introduction:
  "despite repeated assurances of remedial action, the Commission has not managed to achieve the results desired by the Budgetary authorities in the field of financial control."
  It goes on to say:
  "member state authorities continue to issue incorrect certificates for structural funds expenditure, in some cases covering expenditure which has not really been incurred or is eligible for aid"
  — to use another word, fraud. Again, the report notes
  "structural shortcomings in the internal control systems resulting in lack of proper protection of the financial interests of the Community against fraud and other irregularities."
  What makes the situation totally unacceptable is that nearly all of those criticisms were made not just in 1994, but time and again over the past 10 years and longer. Indeed, the report itself says:
  "the audit of matters which are the exclusive concern of the Commission also reveals some of the same problems in 1993 as the Court has raised since 1983.

  965
  If any hon. Member thinks that there is something eccentric—or, dare I say, Euro-sceptic—about the Court of Auditors' report, I invite him or her to look at the 12th report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, published on 19 July 1994. I quote from its opening paragraph:
  "this is the Select Committee's fourth report since 1989 on fraud and financial irregularity in Community spending. Our 1989 report found that huge sums of Community money were lost each year because of fraud; that financial management was weak; that the failure both to detect fraud and take action when it was detected allowed the fraudsters to continue in business; and that for years there has been no political will to tackle the problem."
  That point was made by the previous Chancellor. So much for Mr. David Williamson's assertion that the
  "document was not about fraud but about financial management."
  The sheer effrontery and negativism of the Commission when faced with such a damning report is truly breathtaking. There is not the slightest sign of repentance, nor of any will whatever to deal with the problems so well described and adequately documented in the Court of Auditors' report.
  Still more revealing of the Commission's attitude was the announcement on 3 November of the distribution of portfolios among the new Commissioners, due to take office on 1 January 1995. Given the significance of the issues of fraud, waste and common agricultural policy expenditure, one might have expected that the allocation of responsibility for dealing with financial control and fraud would have been placed on the shoulders of one of the senior Commissioners. Did it go to Sir Leon Brittan, Mr. Bangemann, Karel van Miert, Mr. van den Brock or any of the men of some weight in Brussels? Not a bit of it. The responsibilities were given to number 19 in the new pecking order of 21 Commissioners—Mrs. Anita Gradin, the new Swedish Commissioner, whose portfolio includes immigration, home and judicial affairs, relations with the ombudsman and, last of all, financial control and anti-fraud measures. I have no doubt that she is an excellent lady, but inevitably she has no experience whatever of dealing with the long-term budgetary controls and fraud problems of the Community.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hesitate to argue with my right hon. Friend, but the only decent sign among those Commissioners is Anita Gradin, who is not only a very brilliant lady but one who has undertaken a great deal of careful study of the way in which the Commission works, as she did all the negotiating for Sweden. That is the only good thing to be said of the present incoming Commission. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that the Commission has inadvertently appointed the one person who can actually do something useful.
  Mr. Shore: That would be a very welcome event. It would be a bit like the good fortune that overtook the Government when the pound was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism in the summer of 1992.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I happen to know Mrs. Anita Gradin quite well, as she was chairman of the Council of Europe committee on migration and refugees, of which I was vice-chairman about 10 years ago? She had a very
  966
  compassionate attitude towards refugees and migration problems, but I would not see her as having tremendous rigour in the capacity to root out fraud.
  Mr. Shore: We shall see. I do not wish to say anything other than good words about Mrs. Gradin, but she faces a formidable task. There is indeed an Augean stable to be cleaned out in Brussels in this respect.
  I come back to the point that I made at the start. Given the arrogance and insolence of the Commission, there is no way in which we shall achieve redress for our grievances about fraud and waste unless we have the resolution to deny supply. There should be no increase in own resources unless and until those reforms are carried out. That is why the Bill should be voted down today.
  I now turn to what is being claimed by the proponents of the Bill.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Shore: In a moment.
  We are debating, as we should, the motion that was tabled by my right hon. Friends for the House to consider and vote on tonight. It is a very modest amendment indeed. It simply says that the Bill
  "is not an acceptable measure as it increases the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Union"
  without first dealing with fraud, waste and the common agricultural policy.
  On the merits of the issue, I believe that not one hon. Member in any part of the House would disagree with those sentiments. As we all know, however, Conservative Members are to be ferociously whipped into the No Lobby, with threats of expulsion and deselection directed at dissenters. I deeply regret the fact that the Government have chosen that course and that they have sought to turn the whole issue into a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister.
  It is a vast oversimplification to claim, as the Chancellor did today, that the proposals are an international treaty that we are honour bound to approve. In fact, it is not a treaty at all. It is a decision made in the Council of Ministers and it is given treaty form only by the peculiar definitions of the European Communities Act 1972. It would be entirely proper for the House to amend the Bill so that its implementation could be delayed and made dependent on effective reforms to deal with waste and fraud. Under the threat of dissolution, our debates on the Bill will be reduced to what is virtually a farce. That is a misuse of the House of Commons on what is essentially a piece of domestic and financial legislation.
  As the scope of the European treaties continually widens, we find that an ever-growing area of our national affairs is being subjected to ministerial decision making without prior approval by the House of Commons. That is a threat to our democracy and it is one that all democrats in the House, regardless of party, should resolve to defeat tonight.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Last time I spoke in the House, I was followed by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I do not know how long we can sustain this mutual succession of speeches. The right hon. Gentleman

  967
  confers distinction on every debate in which he takes part, without my necessarily agreeing with much of what he says.
  One can have a claim on the attention of the House tonight only if one is brief, for the issues are of straightforward simplicity and the number of one's colleagues who wish to speak is voluminous. The laws of arithmetic, therefore, reinforce the argument for brevity.
  I want to make just three points this evening, even if that is three times as many as Lloyd George urged on a new Member. Before doing so, I need to say a brief word about the speech of the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). The hon. Gentleman is a historian and he gave us a history lesson on confidence votes. Into that history lesson he introduced the bizarre scenario of Harold Macmillan delegating the defence of the Government, on a confidence vote on the night of the long knives, to Selwyn Lloyd who had been the principal victim of that event. I realise that the Labour party orders these matters differently, but I believe that the only virtue of the bizarre scenario that the hon. Gentleman painted was that it was a harbinger for the bizarre scenario of his whole speech, in which he argued that a wrecking amendment was not at variance with the Labour party's support for the agreement reached at Edinburgh.
  I said that I had three points. The first is that the principle of an international deal entered into by this country should be adhered to. Second Reading is at the level of principle. All of us know that, if the Whips Office did not exist for any length of time, the House would suffer a collective nervous breakdown. One has only to spend an evening here on a series of amendments on a free vote to recognise the force of that. There is a corollary, which is that international statesmanship, or even national statesmanship, is not possible unless it is reinforced by the disciplines of the Whip in this House. Moreover, for all the cries of "perfidious Albion", our allies have long found our word to be reliable. One might, to coin a phrase, say that it is part of the national heritage.
  My second point relates to fraud. Of course we all detest fraud. For all of us, our annual reading of the report by the Court of Auditors is always among the gloomiest reading of our year. However, we have long winced at the most obvious solution, which is to give the Commission greater powers to monitor and investigate the actions of member states in the area. We in this country have confidence in our institutions and we do not see why they should be second-guessed by foreigners. I share the misgivings of some of my hon. Friends about ceding that authority, although it may be the price that we have to pay to secure supervision of the affairs of other member states, whose institutions we trust less, and thus to diminish fraud in the Union.
  All of us bring our own impedimenta to the House. Before I joined the Government, I chaired a business for five years. That business operated in 12 countries, five of them within the European Union. Having lived twice on the continent, I possessed a certain scepticism about mutual accounting standards and business ethics. In the end, one had to rest, in the private sector, on employing a single firm of international auditors which applied the
  968
  local standards in each country. The universality of that firm was an improvement on doing as we do now and relying on the member states' own standards.
  If we wish to sleep at night on the reliability of what is done in our name, further authority may need to be ceded. Opposition Members who ask for that may approach the matter with an underlying sympathy different from that of many of my hon. Friends. I hope that I can appeal successfully to many of my hon. Friends to visit the Court of Auditors, as I have done in the past and as I hope to do again, to get at what would be the most efficacious moves against fraud.
  That brings me to my third point. Conservative Members who ally themselves with the Labour party on this issue run the risk of ending up with something far worse than they currently oppose. Lady Thatcher's first Administration lost only one vote in this House. I have some reason to recall it as I was the pairing Whip. A number of my hon. Friends decided to oppose an immigration order because they felt it to be insufficiently strong. The Opposition opposed it on the opposite ground—that it was too strong. There was a non-contest on the principle of the order. I remember that event vividly because I brought my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), now the Foreign Secretary, back from a visit to Nepal for a vote that we won by 270 to nil. The event so struck my right hon. Friend that he put it into his next novel—although, since truth is always stranger than fiction, he made the majority only 17.
  The eventual Division was won by the Opposition and some of my hon. Friends. This had the consequence that the Government, as they could not strengthen the proposition without risking losing the support of others of their hon. Friends, had no choice on the arithmetic but to bring in a proposal that was even less satisfactory to their hon. Friends, but which was acceptable to the Opposition. Thus do we sometimes, in the name of principle, give ourselves an outcome that we do not remotely desire.
  I support the Bill and I support the negotiating skills in Edinburgh of my right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), which afforded the Bill to us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I remind the House that Madam Speaker has said that from 6 o'clock speeches shall be no longer than 10 minutes.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has a near-impeccable reputation in the House for fair-mindedness, which was on display in his contribution. Being fair-minded, however, he would have to acknowledge that it is not a quality overwhelmingly in evidence in the Cabinet and, in particular, in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There will be a Division at the end of the debate tonight, although there is broadly based, all-party support for the principles of the Bill, because of the thoroughly cynical decision by the Government to turn the debate away from a motion on Europe and on the Bill, into a vote of confidence in themselves.
  The more significant contribution, in terms of Conservative party politics, came from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the

  969
  former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spoke about the way in which we now have Government by threat of collective suicide. He seemed to present himself, in that sense, as some kind of Samaritan who was there to counsel and to help. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister thinks of his former friend and Chancellor as the good Samaritan in all this. It certainly seemed to me that, although the right hon. Gentleman may not yet be a stalking horse, he made more than a little of a stalking speech. The Prime Minister will have to worry about the position in which the former Chancellor is attempting to put himself perhaps not later this week, but in one year's time.
  The fact that we are at an impasse on the Bill is entirely a reflection of the "Perils of Pauline" style of premiership of the present incumbent. It has to be said, however, that to start with a Bill that, if there were a free vote on its merits in the Lobbies tonight, would command a majority of five to one, with hon. Members from all parties supporting it, and then to manage to turn that into a confidence issue on which the Government's majority will be much smaller speaks volumes for the Government's party management and parliamentary management.
  The Chancellor tried to argue on European grounds and it was notable that he turned his attention to the issue of confidence only at the very end of his speech. Indeed, he was not very anxious to take too many interventions on that. That simply reveals or confirms that he knows that this is just a piece of chicanery from the Government. It is a constitutional absurdity to suppose that any Opposition party would express confidence in a Government who are regarded with utter derision and contempt by the voters of this country—as was further revealed by the leaked memorandum from their own deputy chairman only one week ago—particularly when that confidence is vested in Europe, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spent an hour and 10 minutes at the Dispatch Box arguing non-stop and to a standstill with his own Back Benchers, by trooping through the Lobby in support of them. The Government do not have confidence in themselves on this issue and therefore they should not look to the Opposition parties to express any confidence in them either.
  The problem throughout, of course, has been one of leadership. When the Prime Minister became leader of his party, he largely got that job because of who he was not. If he hangs on to it, he will hang on to it because of who he is not. That is the fundamental weakness of the Prime Minister's political position—not least where Europe is concerned. Indeed, his first two sound bites laid the seeds of what may well be his future destruction and perhaps even the destruction of his party. He began by saying that he wanted Britain to be at the heart of Europe. There was much talk of Helmut. We do not hear so much about Helmut these days, but it was Helmut this and Helmut that and how we were all together at the heart of Europe. The first major summit was when Helmut came to Chequers and the whole tone had changed from the days of the previous Prime Minister.
  Then, of course, the Prime Minister negotiated his opt-outs and his anti-social chapter position at the time of the Maastricht treaty, and he came out with the other very revealing sound bite: "game, set and match". Those two sound bites set beside each other reveal the dilemma of the man himself. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot be at the heart of Europe and then talk of scoring tricks
  970
  and deals over Europe and our supposed partners. There is no consistent leadership from the Prime Minister on the fundamental issue that is dividing his party and enfeebling his Administration—Europe.
  Since the last general election, we have had the initial hesitation over Maastricht and then the trumpeting of the fact that Maastricht should be approved for what it was not going to do, what it did not apply to, and what we had managed to extricate ourselves from. The Prime Minister has sought to play the European card in a negative way and he has left all the positive initiative to his malcontents on the Back Benches who are sceptical, or opposed, or Euro-phobic, or whatever the appropriate expression may be.
  Mr. John Biffen: Conservatives,.
  Mr. Kennedy: Conservatives. I am happy to have that all-encompassing term of abuse applied if that is what the right hon. Gentleman wishes.
  In the House, and as a feature of the Government, we now have a party within a party. In the 1980s, Militant Tendency may have been a problem for the Labour party, but it was as nothing compared with the Euro-sceptics on the Conservative Benches. They run their own Whip, they organise their own votes, they have significant editorial endorsement from powerful people in powerful places, they even—essentially—run their own party headquarters. There is a party within a party and that party cannot expect the confidence of the Members of this House when it is internally split from top to bottom on the issue of Europe.
  We may, therefore, be about to see a historic split affecting the Conservatives. The Labour party falls out—internally—from time to time, and we have been known to have our own domestic grief from time to time as well. The thing about the Conservatives though, is that when they split, they do it in style. They usually do it for at least a generation. It does not happen very often, but it is fun to be here when it may be happening and to watch it taking place. They are really the Fortnum and Mason of party splits and I pay tribute to that.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall give way to one of the English federalists as opposed to one of the Christian Democrats.
  Mr. Jenkin: I take note and I take heart from the face that the hon. Gentleman is not taking great pleasure in telling his voters why he would vote for more money for the European Community.
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall happily go on to express that in a moment, but I felt that it was perhaps of more immediate interest to remind the voters of the internal agonies among Conservative Members, because, after all, they form the Government.
  There will be a further implication of the way in which the issue has been turned into a vote of confidence. It will have a damaging internal effect in the Conservative party. I am not particularly bothered about that, but I am more concerned about the damage that it will do to the position of the country in the run-up to the next intergovernmental conference. The Prime Minister, having paid such a heavy price in whipping his malcontents into the Lobby tonight, is bound, in terms of his party management, to respond in

  971
  a more nationalistic and Euro-sceptical way in the run-up to that IGC. That will not be in the best interests of the country because we need to be at the heart of Europe.
  We already began to see that—although the Chancellor, unfortunately, did not give way to an intervention on this matter and therefore managed to avoid clarifying his own position—at the end of last week from the Foreign Secretary, who, ever so significantly and subtly, edged the formal position of the triumvirate at the top of the Cabinet away from its downright stated opposition to an eventual referendum. I do not have difficulty with a referendum, but the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary will have to make a bonfire of their vocabulary over the past few years if that is the way in which they are to sue for peace at the IGC and on the European issue generally in their party in the context of the next general election. Perhaps whoever makes the winding-up speech tonight could take the opportunity to clarify the current stated position of the Cabinet on an eventual referendum.
  Frankly, at the end of the day, the wording of the Labour party's amendment is neither here nor there. It is a vote about confidence in the Government—the context of it so decided, so put down and so phrased by the Chancellor especially, but by the Prime Minister as well. On the basis of European policy, there is no doubt that one cannot have confidence in the Government. Therefore, the argument about what will happen if the amendment is passed is largely sterile. If the amendment is passed, we know what will happen. The Prime Minister will be into his limousine and off up Pall Mall to seek a dissolution from the Queen. There will then be a general election and, undoubtedly, a change of Government.
  Whatever the complexion of the Government who come in, it is difficult to envisage a future Government being more divided or more tortured internally on matters European than this one. Therefore, this measure would be reintroduced. Even if we reach the stage that we did over Maastricht, when Denmark said no on the first referendum, the European powers that be will still be able to find a formula, a means and a mechanism to sort it out eventually. So, let us not have any of this utter nonsense from the Chancellor that failure to pass the Bill tonight will mean a general election and a change of Government, which would destroy it all.
  The issue is not really the Bill and its merits. Its merits are clearly shown, and it enjoys all-party support. What is at stake here is the future of the Government. It really puts it all in context when one thinks of the history of Europe and some of the famous places from Berlin to Brussels and even to Bruges. It seems now that the only person whom the Chancellor is willing to acknowledge has any consistency in his party is the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
  If those who want to speak for little England are to be consistent, they should vote for little England at the end of the debate. The fact that they will not do so shows that they know that electoral extinction would follow. Therefore, knowing that, my unfortunate conclusion is that the Conservative Members will not be going back to their constituencies to prepare for opposition, but, by God, they should.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. John Biffen: May I first declare an interest? I am a non-executive director of J. Bibby plc, a South African company which has a substantial subsidiary in Spain related to the construction industry, and one may assume that it will benefit from the Edinburgh arrangements. I wish to speak briefly about public spending in the European Union, the question of having this debate on an issue of confidence and the general election.
  The House has been so conditioned by battles over public spending—involving not many of those in the Chamber now, but certainly their forebears—going back centuries, that the issue of public spending and how it is financed is at the very heart of politics. On that test, it seems to me that European public spending is flawed in its conception and execution. Everyone who is concerned about public spending as an instrument of social policy should be deeply anxious about that factor.
  I will quote Nye Bevan for the Leader of the Opposition because I gather that to mention socialism in his presence will make me, as near as I can be, a yobbo. At the party conference of 1959, Bevan said:
  "The language of priorities is the religion of socialism."
  There seems to be a dangerous lack of focus about Community spending because, in a sense, it is a product of so many layers of authority. One is almost diffident about praying in aid the virtues of the Treasury, but wherever public spending is concerned, there is much merit in having a disciplined hand.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson)indicated assent.
  Mr. Biffen: I notice that the Euro-enthusiast and Treasury Minister is nodding in agreement.
  I shall refer to my constituency, out of deference to my electors. The 5b area status has been conferred on Shropshire by the European Union. That is modest spending, but it has already raised an absolute hornet's nest of competing claims, local authority prejudices, delays and general condemnation of the Treasury, which has been contrasted with the more open-handedness of Brussels. It all adds up to a less effective application of public spending.
  In deference to Scots Members present, I noticed an even better example of that in The Times under the heading:
  "Hebrideans look to Brussels for £6 million bridge."
  I am not saying that looking is receiving, but the article states:
  "The bridge between Scalpay and Harris in the Outer Hebrides would only span 180 yards of water, a crossing that takes 10 minutes by ferry. Islanders are optimistic that funding will come from the European Union. Last year the Highlands and Islands were granted Objective One status".
  No doubt the bridge will be called "Son of Humber". I do not for a moment say that the project will be landed, but it gives one an insight into the focus of spending in the European Union.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I must try to keep within my time limit.

  973
  Mention has already been made of fraud. I will not add to that except to say that no one knows the extent of the fraud. It is all very well to stand up and to bluster and assert that it is nothing like the figure that has been created in such and such a paper. It is generally acknowledged that fraud is substantial. I rest my case with the 12th report of the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities.
  My next point is the most unnerving point of all. There is an erosion of standards of fiscal responsibility which seems to be pervasive. The House of Lords Select Committee states:
  "as in previous inquiries we detected a worrying absence of indignation at the amounts of fraud and mismanagement in the Community's finances."
  All the cures and improvements, and the Court of Auditors, will falter against the difficulty of devising a system of application which does not merely take account of national culture, but which does so in a form that relates to all other national cultures, which are almost certain to be different. I am not saying that the Nordic experience is different from that of the Latin, but if one could examine the figures, I would not be surprised if there were a difference.
  The Liberal party is right to argue for the repatriation of the common agricultural policy. That is a difficult objective, but ultimately the situation can be dealt with only by diminishing the basis of public spending in the Community and not by alteration of the controls. All that becomes even more imperative as we move towards the expansion of the Community to include the central European countries.
  I want now to refer to the confidence motion. The Prime Minister has every authority to call a confidence motion. Such motions have often been called in the past. I particularly have in mind Winston Churchill demanding confidence after losing a vote on the Education Bill in 1944. I do not believe that that was his finest hour. Looking back, it is clear that that debate, which was about equal pay in the teaching profession, was a sign of the desire for major social change which was enthroned in the 1945 general election. Perhaps the easy recourse to a confidence motion means that one might be a little blind elsewhere in one's political judgment.
  Although I will gladly conform with the confidence vote, as I have always told my constituents I would, I am anxious about it. In that regard, I want to quote Lord Howe, partly because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was his Parliamentary Private Secretary at one time. I hope that his comments will be a beneficial influence. Lord Howe said of modern authority that it was "government by explanation". That is what we grievously need over the next year and a half.
  The next general election will not be fought with a parade ground as the battlefield; it will be fought over much more difficult terrain and that leads me to the attitude which must be struck if the Conservative party is to have a credible position.
  The absence of confidence in the issue exists because there is ambivalence in Conservative party policy. That ambivalence exists because we cannot resolve whether we are going to move from our present position on the opt-out on the single currency. That opt-out is merely a policy of postponing what one wants to say until later in the day. It has very little by way of quality of leadership about it.
  974
  If, as I do, one takes as one's text the Prime Minister's article in The Economist of a while ago, one has a most comprehensive and authoritative exposition of a Tory attitude which looks to the nation state as the centrepiece of European policy. In that context, the natural corollary is a monetary policy which provides for co-operation on the basis that individual states may vary their own national exchange rates. That is the framework for monetary co-operation. It is European in character, but it preserves to the nation its own final judgment.
  I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) is in the Chamber. I read with much interest his letter in The Times today. He got it exactly right. We need a set of principles which will complete our general attitude to the Community and to its evolution and our commitment to the widening of the Community and which will enshrine our belief that the national state is the natural fulcrum for the pursuit of that policy. In doing that, one cannot leave out, ignore or postpone the final crucial question about economic and monetary union. A party that believes in national institutions, its national heritage and its national destiny must have a national context in monetary union.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out, the Bill will increase the ceiling on our contributions from the original figure of 1.2 per cent. to 1.27 per cent. Whatever one says on either side of the argument, the increase in the ceiling represents a victory—perhaps a small victory, thanks to the Government's negotiating prowess—for the centralised institutions of the European state against the nation states in the continuing struggle between the centralised state in Brussels and the powers of the old nation states of Europe. This debate is about that struggle and no doubt future debates will follow that course.
  The Chancellor had to concede that our contributions are going to rise. He said that that was a price that we have to pay for a seat at the table. Years ago, apparently, our contributions were a price to be paid for membership of the club.
  In 1972, there was much talk about subscriptions to clubs. We now have a seat at the table. That is all very well. However, I have always asked—I never receive an answer—why most members of the club and most of the people who have seats at that table do not have to pay anything. Indeed, until very recently—perhaps it is still the position this year—only Germany, as it is now called, and the United Kingdom have to pay for a seat at the table or a subscription to the club. Hon. Members shake their heads, but there might gradually be one or two other countries. France, perhaps, is coming in, but, in general, the largest subscriptions are being paid by two countries. The argument does not hold water.
  The Chancellor took us back to 1984 and the Fontainebleau agreement. I shall refer back a little further in the short time at my disposal. In about 1976, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Healey, asked me as a Treasury Minister to try to do something about the escalating costs of the EEC budget. I do not know what crime I had committed for him to ask me to do that, but it was a frustrating exercise. As a result of the brilliant negotiations that were carried out by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and Lord Rippon, as 1979—the end of the transitional

  975
  period—was coming upon us, subscriptions and net contributions to the club were increasing rapidly. By 1979, they reached £1 billion or even £1.5 billion.
  Of course, I like to look back and think that I laid the groundwork—all the hard work—for the Fontainebleau agreement. Margaret Thatcher, as she was referred to by the Chancellor, managed to negotiate that agreement. It was fortuitous that Spain, Greece and Portugal wanted to come in at the same time, and there was an opportunity to open matters. For a few years, there was a holding back of our net contributions, but they have gone up again—almost £2.5 billion this year and probably £3.5 billion in three or four years. The ceiling has gone up; contributions will again be increased.
  The amendment, which I wholeheartedly support, in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, calls for a cut in common agricultural policy expenditure. I wish that we could cut expenditure on the common agricultural policy. Indeed, I was a member of a Government who tried very hard to cut that expenditure. The present Government have probably done their best, but it is not in the power of Her Majesty's Government of whatever party to cut that expenditure—we need 12 countries to agree. The extraordinary written constitution that we have foisted upon ourselves means that even our legislature cannot change the constitution; we need the agreement of 12 other countries.
  By all means let us cut common agricultural expenditure, but that would be extremely difficult without the consent of the others. I am told that the Poles are going to do that for us. Around the year 2000, the Polish cavalry will come in and lay about the common agricultural policy, and that will be the end of it—perhaps. Perhaps by the time we negotiate with eastern Europe, it will be possible to destroy that monstrosity. It will certainly take a long time.
  My constituency is in west Wales—one could say west Britain. Some of my constituents are a little concerned when they look across the Irish sea and they discover, apparently, that the moneys that come back to the south of Ireland now represent about 6 per cent. of the gross national product of southern Ireland. They ask, "Why should we in Wales contribute that £2.5 billion or £3 billion a year when, across the water in Ireland, in many areas incomes per head are higher than in some parts of south Wales?"

  Let us consider an even smaller country, Luxembourg. It has the highest income per capita in the European Union and it is the second largest net receiver of money from the European Union. Again, my constituents ask, "Why should that be so? Why do we have to pay the price for the seat at the top table and the subscription to the club?"
  There is a contradiction. Tomorrow, the Chancellor will announce, so we are told, £4 billion or £5 billion cuts in public expenditure. Of course, those reductions in public expenditure will not fall upon our contributions to the EEC. Those contributions are outside the PESC—the Public Expenditure Survey Committee—as it used to be called. It does not matter whether the Chancellor knew what the forecasts were, because, in respect of the expenditure round, the contribution had to be made. But the £2.5 billion to be paid this year will have to come out of the rest of public expenditure.
  976
  There is no free lunch. In modern jargon, it is known as disinvestment. We invest in one sector and we have to disinvest in another. We invest £2.5 billion in the public expenditure of the European state and we disinvest £2.5 billion in the public expenditure of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friends, when they form a Government, will face that problem. The cuts that will have to happen will, as usual in terms of public expenditure, fall on the needy, the old and the unemployed.
  There is a contradiction on Maastricht, too. I hate to bring up Maastricht again, but I know that the Chancellor has now read the treaty. Maastricht imposes clamps. It imposes restrictions on public expenditure and the public borrowing of nation states. We are not supposed to spend too much, we are supposed to spend less, yet, of course, we can spend money to hand it over to Brussels, because Brussels can spend more. That is part of the struggle—it is part of what is actually happening. The Chancellor talked about subsidiarity. Apparently, the money also was to enable one word in the treaty to be turned into a brilliantly illuminating paragraph describing subsidiarity. The very payment of £2.5 billion—the very raising of the ceiling—is contrary to the concept of subsidiarity.
  The Government are concerned about subsidiarity. They wish to reduce rather than increase the ceiling, just as we wish to do away with the common agricultural policy and return to a system of national aims for agriculture. That would be subsidiarity.
  The Chancellor wrote me a letter. I gather that all hon. Members received a letter from the Chancellor. It started, "Dear colleague". I really thought that that letter should have gone to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whose last name is Davis and who has one of my first names. I sometimes receive his correspondence and I always scrupulously turn my head the other way and put it back. When I saw the Chancellor's "Dear colleague" I almost did that, but then I thought, "No, perhaps it has a wider circulation." Lord Healey, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, had his problems between 1966 and 1968—we all did—but I do not remember our problems being so great then that he had to write letters to the then Opposition, asking for support to spend more public money. That shows the measure of the panic which appears to be at the heart of the Government when it comes to Europe.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker , (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Chair has a problem now; I must stop the right hon. Gentleman.
  6.27 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: I can remember Lord Healey, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, having problems of his own in turning back from the airport. Other hon. Members will remember that, too.
  One of the interesting points of the debate is the lavish attention that is being paid to the Public Accounts Committee and the effort to control fraud and waste. I do not think that I have ever heard so much attention being paid to it. I was a member of the PAC for 20 years. At that time, our debates took place on one day late in the Session. There was never a Whip, of course. Our debates were badly attended and only members of the PAC were present. I suppose it is an advance to have so much attention paid to the PAC, particularly by Opposition Members.

  977
  The amendment, in drawing attention to public waste in the European Union, is very important and it needs to be debated. I am grateful for that. However, it seems that the issue of public waste was raised in the amendment merely as a peg on which to hang a reason to vote against the Government in a most important vote of confidence.
  I think that the European Communities (Finance) Bill appears to be quite reasonable. Two years ago the Prime Minister came to the House to make a statement about the legislation. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said earlier today, at that time there was only one voice against it on the Government side; nobody else objected to the increase in expenditure because it was very modest.
  Much more attention has been paid to the fact that the arrangements for financing the Community, which were made under the 1988 agreement, have been very erratic. It is true that the expenditure of extra money—some £750 million—comes at a time when it is convenient for the critics of the Bill to lump it together and say that the situation is out of control. It is uncertain because it involves forecasts which are based on future estimates of gross domestic product. The reason why it appears that we are having to pay more this year is that our GDP has risen at a faster rate than that of other members of the European Union. So I do not think we can use that argument in objecting to the increase in payments. In any case, the amount of subscription to the European Union was set in stone many years ago and was passed by the House.
  The increase in expenditure which was decided upon in the Edinburgh agreement is only £75 million in 1995 and £250 million in 1999. I think that the Edinburgh agreement has other advantages, too: notably, we shall no longer be the second-largest contributor of funds to the Union. France, the Netherlands and, per capita, Austria and Sweden will contribute more. It is also a real advance that future contributions will be related to proportion of GDP rather than VAT contributions. That is the right way to go.
  All in all, I do not believe that the Bill places a substantially greater burden on this country than that which we carried before. However, there are other burdens in all the nooks and crannies through which the European Union and the Commission, in particular, can get involved in our national life. The burden comes in the European Commission's essentially corporatist approach, its social chapter and the existence of the cohesion and the structural funds.
  Yet I cannot help but wonder how many Members of the House would wish us to leave the European Union, for all its faults, after 20 years of membership. Our whole trade and investment system is deeply embedded in the European Union. At a purely practical level, if we were outside the European Union, how could we influence it about landing rights at Charles de Gaulle airport, for example, which Air France is trying to prevent British Airways from using?
  There are other reasons for our remaining in the Union which have been gone over many times. This country has acted as a magnet for overseas investment and it is plainly in our commercial interests to remain a member of the Union and to have an influence over the future pattern of Europe.
  978
  Meanwhile, we have to deal with the current imperfections of the European Union. I am privileged to have been the chairman of the Public Accounts Commission for the past five years. In that capacity, I have seen a good deal of the Comptroller and Auditor General and we have had a number of discussions about fraud and waste within the European Union and how we might be able to combat it effectively. I have corresponded with both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the matter.
  I think that right hon. and hon. Members are perfectly correct to point to the scandalous imperfections and examples of fraud and waste within the European Union and its total failure of will to deal with these problems. However, if we are to deal with fraud and waste effectively we will have to give the European Commission and the European Parliament more power than they have at present. There is no way that we, as a nation, can affect European Union spending; that is an inescapable dilemma.
  The European Parliament has useful powers in relation to the European Commission. But hon. Members who have served on the Public Accounts Committee will know that it all depends on how these powers are used. They will recall that if a permanent secretary was due to appear before the Committee, he would take a week off work to prepare. I would like to think that some Commissioners at the Berlaymont building would miss even a lunch in order to prepare before appearing before the budget committee. It would do them no harm to miss a few lunches.
  The European Parliament is not sufficiently addressing the powers that it has to tackle the European Commission about waste and fraud. However, not even those extra powers will be sufficient in themselves to address the problem. Ultimately, the European Union should not allow funds to go to a member state for any purpose—cohesion, structural or agricultural—until the frauds and waste which have been discovered have been properly reimbursed and penalties have been imposed.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wants member states to pass the appropriate laws. That is a matter for them to decide. They may agree to do so, but I wonder whether the pace of legislation to deal with fraud and crime in Greece or Italy, for example, will be as rapid as it is in this country. I rather doubt that it will. Therefore, the only satisfactory way in which to deal with these problems is for the European Commission to withhold its funds.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It cannot be done.
  Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend may say that, but it can be done, and I have it in writing from the Chancellor to say that that is the case.
  It might help if the United Kingdom PAC were to meet the PACs from other member countries. I think that the incidence of fraud and waste brings the European Union into contempt, and the European Parliament and the Commission must come to grips with the problem. It is far and away the most important duty of the European Parliament.

  979
  Whenever I mention the matter to my friends in the European Parliament—as, I dare say, my hon. Friends have done—I see their eyes glaze over. They like to debate these matters, but they do not like to do the invigilation and investigation.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Peter Hordern: No. I am sorry, but I am very short of time. Many improvements need to be made.
  Unfortunately, fraud and waste have an effect upon the regard in which the European Parliament is held. The voter turnout at the European elections demonstrated a lack of confidence in Europe. It is always very dangerous to depart too far from our democratic roots and support. Whatever Europe thinks of us, national Parliaments are democratic institutions which enjoy the largest measure of popular support. That is certainly true in this country.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member's time has expired.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), who spent his 10 minutes reminding the House, rightly, of the important and different traditions by which parliamentary sovereignty and accountability have developed. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is a rich irony that in this parliamentary Session we celebrate the tercentenary of the parliamentary Session of 1690 to 1695 which basically invented democratic accountability as we have come to know it.
  Accountability was invented using financial control of the Administration of the day, through the first Public Accounts Committee, which was directly elected by the House in the 1690 Parliament. The parliamentary Session of 1690 to 1694 saw the first annual estimates presented to the House. Those changes to procedure ensured the continued stability of parliamentary institutions. Exactly 300 years ago this Session we established the principle of annual Sessions of Parliament. Before that, even in the British tradition, the House of Commons was more a matter of occasion than an institution. It could go for years without even sitting.
  That position is fundamentally different from what happened on the continent and that is why our definition of sovereignty is different from that of any other country in Europe. We define loss of sovereignty as loss of parliamentary control over our financial affairs—rightly so, because that is the basis on which we have conceived the idea of sovereignty. That interpretation cannot be found anywhere on the continent. The Spanish Cortes, the Bundestag, and the Greek, French or Italian Parliaments do not have that sense of continuity. Nor have they defined sovereignty in institutional terms, as we have. It is richly ironic that we are debating a Bill which will again transfer significant sums of money outside the control of the Public Accounts Committee and outside any form of scrutiny.
  I listened with interest to the speech of the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). He has to admit, as we all do, that we no longer have control over the money that we agree to
  980
  pass to Europe. It will not be subject to Public Accounts Committee scrutiny. It cannot be subject to a minute from some permanent secretary such as Sir Tim Lankester which said of the Pergau dam affair, "I do not believe in and do not underwrite this type of expenditure." There is no such equivalent procedure in Europe. Therefore, we are abrogating a measure of parliamentary sovereignty if we support the Bill.
  I should like to demonstrate the point. Where will the money go that we are supposed to vote to transfer? It will go to one form of expenditure that I should instinctively support. The financial perspective for 1993 to 1999 shows an increase of more than 42 per cent. in EC overseas aid programmes. I have examined the management and financial accountability of such programmes. I am talking not about fraud but about the processes of ensuring financial accountability. One reads report after report. The House of Lords has submitted reports and the Court of Auditors has reported on EC overseas aid expenditure.
  I find it impossible to accept the line, which I think the right hon. Member for Horsham tried to persuade us to accept, that we should continue giving the money in the hope that it will some day be made more accountable. I cannot see how a 42 per cent. increase in a budget which already cannot easily be accounted for and which is riddled with waste and duplication of administration will improve the programme. Every investigation has emphasised the waste in European overseas aid programmes. I do not understand the logic of increasing the budget. I do not understand how, if the budget is increased to that extent, we will manage to make it more financially accountable and less wasteful and gain control over the fraud and mismanagement. It is a large aid udget and it is not working effectively, as anyone who has examined it agrees.
  If one wanted an example of how parliamentary sovereignty has been eroded, overseas aid expenditure is as good as any. As a result of the increase in overseas aid expenditure in Europe and elsewhere, next year more than half the budget of the Overseas Development Administration, a major part of a Government Department of the British state, will be outside the scrutiny, power and responsibility of the House of Commons and its Committees. More than 50 per cent. of the budget of one major agency will be spent by agencies outside this country which are not subject to the Public Accounts Committee, to estimates or to control by the House.
  I came into the House more than 25 years ago believing in the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. It may sound old-fashioned, whiggish or whatever one may like to call it. I still believe in it. I have watched the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. I have to confess to the House that I have condoned it. I did not do very much on the Single European Act. I looked up the debates on the European Communities (Finance) Bill in 1988 and I took no part. I scarcely voted, but nor did the House. The Committee stage was cleared in one evening. The Third Reading was nodded through without a debate.
  Half the Chancellor's case was that we did not oppose the Edinburgh summit agreement in 1992. All right. We are waking up fast. The likes of me are waking up and are no longer willing to support and condone the loss of parliamentary sovereignty represented by the Bill. Therefore, I shall not only vote for our Front-Bench amendment but vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  6.44 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Over the years, I have had a few rows with my Front Bench about the European Community. I remember resigning from a Conservative Government—probably before you were born, Mr. Deputy Speaker—because they decided to join the EC. I remember exchanging rather tough words with a lady for the first time when the previous Prime Minister was in office. It is unfortunate that in the debate tonight an enormous number of people will vote for what they consider a load of rubbish. We have enthusiastic Euro-supporters who will vote against the Bill tonight. That seems silly. I know that a substantial number of my hon. Friends who are opposed to what is happening feel obliged to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  I shall be in trouble because I am afraid that I cannot support the Government in the Lobby tonight. All that I want to do is say a few things to my colleagues which I hope that they will remember. Unfortunately, I shall be in great trouble. Happily, I have a splendid constituents association which supports me. However, no one is safe, because we have a regional chair of the Conservative party who has all the management skills of the late Robert Maxwell and all the charm and good humour of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown). In that situation, we have to worry.
  However, I am not worried. We have to ask ourselves what people should think about this evening. First, I plead with colleagues to consider honestly whether they are not losing every battle on the EC. If they do so, they will see that that is what is happening. Let us take the repeated statements year after year that agricultural reform is coming, something is around the corner and spending is falling. Please look at the financial papers and see what has been happening. My colleagues will see that expenditure is increasing.
  The Government say—the Chancellor said it today—that our proportion of the total budget is going down. My hon. Friends should ask him what is happening to domestic spending on agriculture. There has been a shift of expenditure from the EC to member states. Sadly, it breaks every record. The Government say, "Please vote for us because now we have control. We have budgetary limits." My colleagues should look at the budget for 1995. They will see precisely and clearly on page 13 that spending will bust through the legal limits by more than £1,000 million and that it will be done by means of accountancy devices. That is exactly what happened the last time that we had limits.
  I ask my colleagues please to stop thinking of controlling European legislation. I had the pleasure only this week of meeting representatives of Thamesway, my local bus company, a super bus company which runs buses all over the place. Colleagues should ask local bus companies what will happen with the EC construction directive on buses and coaches. It will make massive changes. It will make the use of double deckers impossible. It will insist on all sorts of extra exits. It will involve massive spending. It is a load of nonsense. When we ask the Government what they can do, they say that, sadly, it is a majority vote issue.
  I appeal to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who is one of the most honest and accurate Ministers, to remember the issue of freedom of trade. Does he
  982
  remember PMS, one of my local firms? It is a super firm employing 200 people. It made £2 million profit last year. I received a letter from it only today, which says:
  "It would appear that the EC is determined to destroy our business."
  It had been told that it had to reduce its business by more than 50 per cent. It imports stuff and re-exports it. What can the Government do? Basically nothing, because although they voted against the relevant measure, it went through by majority vote. I plead with my colleagues to stop thinking that they are winning the battle and stop pretending. Sadly, expenditure and interference are increasing and the economic situation in the EC is getting worse. If hon. Members doubt that, they should ask what the European Community's trade is with the rest of the world.
  Secondly, we must ask ourselves how on earth we can support extra funding for the EC when spending is so dreadfully tight at home. On Friday, I went to Lancaster school in Southend—I am sure that no one has heard of it—which is a school for severely disabled children. They are in wheelchairs and have appalling disabilities. A report issued in 1992 states:
  "The accommodation … is unsuitable for the needs of children with severe learning difficulties. The majority of classes can only be reached by external sloping pathways, 2 bases are in relocatable classrooms, toileting and changing facilities are poor, and there is little specialist therapy accommodation."
  In 1994, the inspectors' report stated:
  "Problems with the school building had a detrimental effect on the pupils' education."
  The Health and Safety Executive said that the paths and slopes were unsuitable for wheelchairs. Why can something not be done? For the simple reason that there is no money.
  Yesterday, a lady from Cluny square visited me. Her son-in-law told me that she is desperate to get into a retirement home, but cannot do so because, sadly, Essex county council says that there is no money. With a situation like that, how on earth can any Member of Parliament in all conscience vote for extra cash to go to an organisation that wastes money as though it were water? It is not right.
  In fairness, the Government fight very hard to sort things out and we know that a Labour Government would do exactly the same, but what should we be doing today? I hoped that the Government would start to tell the truth to troublesome Back-Bench Members. That is a shocking thing to have to say to any Government or Opposition, but I mean it sincerely. Unfortunately, Ministers who are Euro-enthusiasts put things one way—Opposition spokesmen who are Euro-enthusiasts do the same. For example, let us try to get across what the balance of our trade is with the European Community. What is the expenditure and how does it compare?
  Unfortunately, we heard only last week that there had been some error of calculation and we had to spend an extra £731 million on the EC this year—almost as much as the £900 million that we have paid in value added tax on fuel during the year. We want to know when the Government found out about the error. The Chancellor told us, first, that he could not remember and, then, that it was not on his mind when he wrote to Members of Parliament. We simply have to tell people the facts and, once we have done so, we must ask about the options.

  983
  All this talk of how we will stop fraud is so silly. No matter how many Euro-policemen one employs, one cannot stop fraud when one has a policy that invites it and it is absolute nonsense to say that one can. All those Members who say that we should have more Euro-policemen and open up more offices must know that that is madness and cannot work. We must decide that the common agricultural policy should be scrapped and how we should go about it.
  I hope that the Government will appreciate that people's views are changing. Anyone who doubts that fact should remember what happened at the Conservative party conference in Bournemouth. It was tragic that no one wanted to talk about the European Community at the conference, but every meeting organised by the Euro-sceptics or the anti-market groups was packed out. We had to turn people away, and it was not because speakers like me were brilliant but because the average Conservative knew that something was going very wrong.
  Young people are getting worried. They are worried about the threat to our democracy and they are wondering what is the point of voting for all those clever politicians at the next election when all their powers are being given away. I hope that we will think of a way of asking the people of Britain whether we should have a separate relationship with the European Community and how they would like to express a view on the subject.
  I am very distressed because I am in no sense a conspirator against the Prime Minister, who is a decent and honourable man. If I have the opportunity to vote in a leadership election, I shall do so. I am not trying to rock the Government in any way, but I hope that they will accept that some hon. Members think it outrageous, impossible and wrong to vote for extra cash for the EC when it wastes so much money.
  I well remember walking down Southend high street with my lovely wife on Saturday. I could not walk down that street again next week and be straight and open with people if we decided to pour even more cash into that wasteful, fraudulent and non-democratic organisation. I very much regret that I cannot vote for the Government tonight, but obviously I wish them well.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). His remarks were obviously very sincere. He and I come to this debate from very different positions, yet we will, I hope, be in the same Lobby tonight—if the hon. Gentleman is not there, he will in sentiment be in the same Lobby as Opposition Members.
  Clearly, this debate is not about European Union expenditure. It is a dry run for the intergovernmental conference debate that is yet to come and reflects the internal schism in the Conservative party. The real issues in the debate are obscured by the way in which it has been conducted.
  At the risk of being unpopular with the majority of hon. Members in the Chamber, I shall say why it is essential for people to put matters into perspective. Our total domestic product is about £400 billion. We are discussing total expenditure on the European Union of about £2.5 billion. The United Kingdom has the eighth-largest gross
  984
  domestic product per capita in the Union, yet we are the second-largest contributor to the budget. Clearly, that is unacceptable and it must be changed.
  The real reason for the size of that contribution is not the increases that were agreed at Edinburgh but the fact that agricultural spending still takes a disproportionate amount of the European Union budget. It is not surprising that the Government are not doing anything substantial to remedy that problem because, after all, the Conservative party represents very large agricultural interests that do not want fundamentally to change the common agricultural policy, the set-aside arrangements and all the other scams and scandals that apply not only where there has been fraud but to the way in which urban working people and consumers are punished because of the interests of the agricultural lobby.
  Speaking as a Member of Parliament for an urban constituency with no agriculture, I believe that it is about time that the majority of people got a better deal through lower food prices and more efficiency, which is in their interests, rather than having to pay others not to produce, or to produce alcohol that is converted to vehicle fuel and tobacco that is unsmokeable and stockpiled. That nonsense cannot go on. That is why it is essential that we reform the common agricultural policy.
  On fraud and the role of the auditors within the European Union, some people in the European Parliament in Brussels are fighting very hard to get a grip on the work, led by members of the socialist group such as Terry Wynn and John Tomlinson. It is not for the European Parliament to decide what resources are required to carry out the inspections and how many people should carry out the work; that is a decision for the Council of Ministers.
  My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said that the British Government failed to take up funding that was available for anti-fraud measures. Worse than that, the British Government have resisted efforts to increase the budget heads so that people can carry out that work. If our Government were serious about action against fraud, they would be doing all that they could, not merely on a national basis but on an international, European Union, basis.
  We also have the opportunity to do something fundamental about the common agriculture policy, and all the problems associated with it, in the next few years during the debates about enlargement. I was alarmed to read in a newspaper today that one of the Commissioners is suggesting that the CAP be extended to Poland. In their discussions over enlargement with the central and eastern European Visegrad countries, the Government must be clear that we are not just going to transpose the existing CAP into 17, 20 or more countries. We must use the opportunity of enlargement to break and erode the CAP and to reduce expenditure on agriculture. We must not build in even worse problems for the future by trying to finance surpluses, overproduction and set-asides in Poland, Slovakia, the Czech republic and Hungary. I say that as somebody who is firmly committed to enlargement and who wishes all the democratic countries of Europe ultimately to be part of the same political and economic system within the European Union. Of course, we are not trying today to resolve those matters.
  As long as this lame-duck Government persist in hanging on to office by threat, bluster and blackmail, they will be clearly incapable—because of their internal divisions—of doing anything constructive or on a

  985
  collective basis with other Governments or with the European Parliament to assist in making changes in the process. We must wait for a change of Government, and for a Government who are committed to reforming the common agriculture policy, to rooting out fraud and corruption and to co-operating and building up structural funds. We must shift the balance in the EU budget towards areas of need, combating unemployment and implementing proposals—such as the Delors package—which will deal with the problems that Europe is facing. I regret that the debate is not focusing on the issues. I hope that we will soon have a Government who are able to set us on that path.
  7.1 pm
  Sir John Cope: I shall refer to the first terms of the Bill, because it is on Second Reading that we shall be primarily and most importantly voting at the end of the debate.
  I was closely involved with the issue as a Minister when I was at the Treasury, from the election until July this year. Given the freedom of the Back Benches and some time for reflection and hindsight, I remain a supporter of the actions that were taken by my senior colleagues at the Edinburgh summit and brought into effect by the Bill. I believe that it was an extremely good deal. My opinion was enforced by the fact that—as far as I can gather from his response to an intervention—even the shadow Chancellor thought it was a good deal. He did not criticise the deal during the whole of his speech, and that seems to be the position also of the Liberal Democrat party.
  Of course, we can all imagine a more desirable deal for the United Kingdom being achieved if we did not have to reach agreement with others. That is also true of each of the other 11 countries that were represented around the table, each of which could have prevented an agreement. But we in the House must live in the real world, and the Edinburgh deal was a good deal for the United Kingdom.
  As a result of Edinburgh, the total increase in European Community expenditure has been slowed down, and the proportion of Community expenditure that falls on the UK has also been reduced. As for total expenditure, there is always plenty of debate in this Parliament and elsewhere about individual programmes within the Community. But the key overall figure is the own resources ceiling which restricts the total amount that the Community can spend under every head by reference to a percentage of GNP. As we know, that proportion was 1.2 per cent. by the time of the Edinburgh summit. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that, whatever creative accounting may be attempted on individual bits of expenditure—as he suggested in one instance—the own resources limit applies in total to all the expenditure. That was the key figure at Edinburgh.
  Just before Edinburgh, the Commission proposed a series of increases, starting with 1.22 per cent. in 1993 and rising to 1.37 per cent. in 1999. The Commission thought that those rises were a compromise between member states such as ourselves that were very restrictive on the amount of spending and those that wanted to spend more. If that compromise had been in place this year, the Community would have been able to spend 1.27 per cent. of GNP. In fact, we will not reach 1.27 per cent. until 1999. Of course, this year's increase is nil.
  986
  The final agreement was to reach less than half the compromise increase two years later than was proposed, but there was also hard negotiation on the various member states' shares of total expenditure, and once again I believe it to be a good deal. There was shifting of some of the weight of expenditure from the VAT resource to the GNP resource, which helps our cash flow and means that—over the term of the agreement—the proportion of Community expenditure funded by the UK will go down.
  In turn, the deal means that the number of states that are serious net contributors to the Community will increase and, as we have heard, enlargement will take that process further. That will make our position in the Economic and Finance Council and in the Budget Council much easier. It is also potentially very important for the changing culture of the Community, and the Council of Ministers in particular, with regard to value for money and fraud. I observed part of that process myself before I left the Treasury. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will do all they can to build on that advantage.
  I believe that, for those two primary reasons, it is a good deal for the UK. But, of course, it was a deal, and I and others believe that it depends on the belief that it is in the UK's interests to continue to belong to the European Community. I believe that because of the inward investment that has come to my constituency and to others all over country. I believe that it is also in our interests to be part of a large and prosperous home market—not to protect that market but to act as a base from which to trade around the world, particularly against other great trading blocks. It is better to work with our nearest neighbours and rivals to ensure the free movement of goods and services and proper uniform standards. Our membership of the EU also increases our leverage in world negotiations.
  Above all, it is wise to have "jaw-jaw" rather than "war-war", and I am talking about trade wars as well as the shooting wars from which the European Community originated. "Jaw-jaw" can sometimes be extremely hard work in the European Community. I have represented this country from three different Departments on the Council of Ministers and a number of other Councils. I was much involved during the UK's presidency, when I was president of the Budget Council.
  I know exactly to my cost—I lost sleep because of it—how difficult negotiating within the Community sometimes is. However, if we belong to the Community, it is necessary for us to take part in all its work. We must negotiate the best deals we can, as was done successfully by the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the Foreign Secretary at Edinburgh.
  It has always been obvious to me that the Bill would be of the first importance. The supporters of the Government are expected, of course, to support all the major Bills introduced. There is nothing new in that and I was not in the least surprised when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt that out in the debate on the Queen's Speech. An idea has grown up, too, that because opposition to a Bill is regarded as incompatible with full membership of the Government's parliamentary party, the Opposition parties are therefore obliged to vote against it as well, regardless of whether they support its aims. In fact, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties seem to support the purpose of the Bill.

  987
  That decision to oppose is a distortion of our constitution and promotes to absurd lengths the idea that the duty of the Opposition is to oppose. Of course I realise the temptation to the Opposition parties. I am cynical enough to realise that they cannot resist it. Their excuse is concern about fraud and the mismanagement in the Community, but we are all concerned about that, too. The Opposition also know perfectly well that the United Kingdom Government, of all Governments, have been the strongest in the Community in combating fraud and mismanagement. The Opposition know that that will continue to be the case.
  If our Parliament can find better ways in which to scrutinise such expenditure, we should, by all means, consider them. We could, for example, consider the suggestions put forward in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and others, which has not been selected. A change of that kind, however, should not be seen as a reason to decline to give the Bill its Second Reading. It deserves support from both sides of the House.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: In common with the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), I must declare an interest, because I have been associated with companies that have benefited from funding through the International Fund for Ireland, which is partly financed by the European Community.
  As is well know, the Ulster Unionist party has consistently opposed the integration of Europe. We are strong Europeans and believe in co-operation in Europe, but we do not believe in subjecting the United Kingdom to control from Brussels. That has been our line consistently.
  What concerns us as a parliamentary party is the attitude of the Government to the Edinburgh agreement. They are treating it as though it were a foreign treaty. They argue that it represents a political commitment and has placed on Parliament an international obligation to rubber-stamp what was agreed in Edinburgh. I believe, however, that the Prime Minister went to the conference in Edinburgh and made a decision that requires the approval of the elected Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom. They are neither delegates nor rubber stamps but representatives, who have the right to express their views, yea or nay, on the Edinburgh agreement.
  The agreement has two adverse effects. First, it is yet a further move in the direction of an integrated Europe. It increases the United Kingdom's contributions from own resources to the European Commission's budget. Secondly, it brings into being the cohesion fund, which benefits European regions, as well as four European nations. Some of the regions within those four nations, however, are much richer than many of the regions in the eight other countries that have been excluded from the benefits of that fund. I think immediately of some regions in Scotland, which have been denied any benefit from it. Among the favourable aspects of the Edinburgh agreement is the British Government's success in drawing attention to fraud and waste and the successful decision at least to curtail agricultural expenditure.
  988
  In the few minutes allowed to me I should like to discuss the implications of the agreement for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland receives a considerable amount of money from the European Union, but it must be said that were we not a member of that Union, the national expenditure on Northern Ireland would be even greater than the money that we receive from Europe. That must always be borne in mind. Of greater concern to us, since we are in Europe and receive European funding, is that the funding from the Commission is politically motivated. The spending priorities are not those that we in the United Kingdom would have chosen and are certainly not those that we in Northern Ireland would prefer.
  The International Fund for Ireland, for example, concentrates mainly on cross-border projects. It also spends money on some other projects that we consider wasteful, such as butterfly parks, a golfing video, as well as £40,000 on Lord O'Neill's steam engine, which closed down a few months later. The money wasted through that fund is also politically oriented expenditure. For example, 20 villages were selected to receive money from that fund, but even though the majority of villages in Northern Ireland are unionist, those selected were nationalist majority villages. That kind of policy, funded by the European Community, is creating unease and irritation among the unionist majority community in Northern Ireland. It represents an abuse of power by the European Community, through the International Fund for Ireland, and, as a result, the majority community in Northern Ireland is now losing out.
  Another example of such political motivation will be announced next week, with the allocation of a further £300 million for Northern Ireland. We welcome that money, but, once again, the European Union is about to say that that money can be spent only on cross-border roads. Not a penny of that money can be spent on priority roads for Northern Ireland—for example, the Supermac junction on Saintfield road, the busiest junction in Northern Ireland, which has to deal with 50,000 vehicles a day. Instead it must be wasted on small roads across the border.
  An important internal road in the west of Ulster runs from Omagh to Enniskillen. That road is especially important now that Omagh has lost its maternity hospital, which means that women must travel to Enniskillen. No money can be spent on that road from the new funding. That is the type of thing that is upsetting people in Northern Ireland.
  We look forward to the intergovernmental conference in 1996. I hope that the United Kingdom Government will bring to an end the movement towards a federal Europe. That would ensure that we end up not with a Europe of regions, but a Europe of co-operating sovereign states. The Government should also, finally, commit themselves to opposing a single currency, otherwise its introduction would mean the final destruction of the United Kingdom as an independent nation. I hope that we will have some offer from the Government to the effect that, after 1996, it will be the people, through a referendum, who will have the right to decide what happens in our future relations with Europe.
  We have been asked how we intend to vote tonight. It has been alleged that there is a deal between the Ulster Unionist party and the Government. Let me make it clear that there is no deal, nor is there need for one, because in the context of the developing situation within Northern

  989
  Ireland, Her Majesty's Opposition support the Downing street declaration, just as Her Majesty's Government do. Therefore, any change in Government would have no effect on the present process in Northern Ireland, so there is no need for any deal. The Ulster Unionist party is not afraid of a general election either; my party would welcome it, because, in the present circumstances, we would do well in Northern Ireland.
  Our decision on the Bill will be based not on Northern Ireland politics, but on today's debate—Europe and where we are going in it. The Government may have done some bad things, but when we look at the alternatives we see a Labour Opposition, and, even worse, a Liberal Democrat Opposition, who give the impression that they would accept every demand and every expenditure call from Brussels. They would query nothing. They accept everything coming from Brussels. Until Her Majesty's Opposition take a firm line and stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom in Europe, I am afraid that the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party could not identify itself with the policies of the Opposition tonight.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The proposition that "I know I am right" has now been elevated into a new constitutional doctrine. It whips a coach and horses through our history and traditions. It sweeps away the struggles of Pym and Hampden to establish our parliamentary rights against the absolutism of the Crown and asserts a new and dangerous concept—the divine right of Government. Then we had regicide; now we have suicide. Now the Prime Minister in effect declares that the Government can do no wrong—but he is not here today.
  We have been told that the Bill is introduced and must pass as a matter of honour. We have been told that the presidency conclusions at Edinburgh amount to an international commitment, an international obligation. It has been described as a treaty obligation. That is not so; and no one seriously believes that we would have lost the rebate successfully secured at Fontainebleau.
  The own resources decision became legally binding as recently as 31 October this year, but that was dependent on it being enacted in the House according to our constitutional requirements. That includes the rights of Members of Parliament.
  Much has happened since the Edinburgh Council and—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when we were chucked out of the exchange rate mechanism—circumstances have changed. Not least, we have the compelling evidence that fraud in the European Community has not been contained. Far from it; as the current Court of Auditors report clearly shows, it has got worse in spite of the Maastricht treaty.
  There has been more than enough reason not to implement the presidency conclusions since December 1992. They were concluded immediately after our ejection from the ERM, since when our gross domestic product has grown, and will grow as non-EU exports improve, as the revised figures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has belatedly presented to the House demonstrate. He of course had to do that after having said on a radio programme that my figures were rubbish. Nothing said today alters that.
  990
  There is also the repudiation by the Court of Auditors of the accuracy of the GNP figures. Then there is the Conservative European manifesto of May and June 1994, which clearly states:
  "We will resist all pressure to increase the ceiling on spending in the Community."
  Why, then, did we break that commitment to our own people, our own voters—as we did over the tax promises in our general election manifesto of 1992 as a result of the disastrous experiment in the exchange rate mechanism? A mere four months later, on 31 October 1994, we broke that commitment. That itself was a mere 10 days after the Chancellor had gone to Brussels and had given in significantly to the Italian blackmail on Italy's milk quota fraud. The Bill is tainted with fraud.
  The Prime Minister could, and should, have said no on 31 October, and gained the approval of the electorate. As when he refused to veto economic and monetary union, and as when the Danes first rejected Maastricht and he let them down, as when he stubbornly stayed in the exchange rate mechanism—which nearly destroyed our economy—and as when he failed to say no to qualified majority voting, the chasm between promise and performance grows wider and wider as the tectonic plates of the European issue move beneath us.
  As Francis Bacon said:
  "Nothing destroys authority so much as the unequal and untimely interchange of power pressed too far and relaxed too much."
  My amendment would draw powers back to the House—to the democratic, independent, all-party scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee, in co-operation, as I have always argued, with the European Parliament and in contact with the Court of Auditors, but in line with the promises of Maastricht: the Government's commitment to enhance the powers of national Parliaments, as yet ignored.
  Edinburgh was a failure, as I said at the time. We gave in to Kohl's intimidation and Gonzalez's avarice, largely because of threats that we would be drawn away from enlargement. We should have stood up to them and used Edinburgh to renegotiate Maastricht. We would not be in this dangerous position, in the run-up to 1996, if we had.
  So what is to be done? I will not support the Labour party, which would simply enact the Bill. Our argument is won, but the taxpayer will pay, either under the present Government or a under Labour successor. It would be worse than a pyrrhic victory to defeat the Government tonight. In "Murder in the Cathedral" we are told:
  "it is the greatest treason to do the right thing for the wrong reason."
  Tonight, some will do the wrong thing for the right reason.
  In my constituency annual general meeting last year, I was advised to recall the words of Winston Churchill:
  "Your first duty is to your country; your second duty is to your constituents; only in the third instance is your duty to your party's policy and programme."
  Those people have been magnificent.
  We are being whipped to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. That is a disgrace to our parliamentary democracy, and makes more and more valid the claim of Chancellor Kohl's foreign policy spokesman, who said:
  "Those who cling to national sovereignty are seeking solace in an empty shell."
  We have been warned.

  991
  Let us assert our confidence in the House by refusing a single currency now, by tackling fraud as my amendment proposes and by holding a referendum on this issue as a last resort—before the intergovernmental conference, and the prospect of a sell-out worse even than that at Maastricht. We could, and I would still urge that the Government do so, withdraw the Bill.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. George Stevenson: There can be little doubt that fraud is a justifiable cause for concern, and that it is growing. One of the main reasons why fraud is growing is the complete failure, especially by the Government, to control, let alone eliminate, it.
  The Court of Auditors reports in the past 10 years or so have shown that it believes that at least 10 per cent. of the European Community budget is subject to fraud. I believe, and I think that most right hon. and hon. Members believe, that that is the tip of a very large iceberg.
  I was staggered by the Chancellor's statement earlier, when he criticised the theory that fraud could amount to about £6 billion. He pooh-poohed that. He said that that was pure speculation, and completely irresponsible. The 10 per cent. figure that the Court of Auditors has identified—I repeat that it is the tip of a large iceberg—will account for fraud of £4.5 billion per year. The figure that the Chancellor so arrogantly dismissed is not too far away from the facts with which we are now presented.
  The Government claim that they have targeted fraud. I want to show that their aim is severely defective. The fundamental reason for that is that the common agricultural policy system is inherently fraudulent.
  In 1992, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) came back to the House and claimed that the changes to the CAP were not only Tory-inspired but a victory for Europe, for Britain, for the farmers, for the taxpayers and for the consumers. I believe that claim to be as bogus as the claim by the Government that they are winning the battle against fraud.
  We should separate the facts from Government propaganda—propaganda which, I believe, is designed to hoodwink the public further. A report published by the Court of Auditors this year highlighted a crucial element in the system of fraud—the export refund system. The export refund system is fertile ground for the fraudsters. A crucial element in control of the export refund system is accurate recording of production. The Court of Auditors report showed that two states in the European Union had a satisfactory system of production records. The Court of Auditors report also said that the records of the Netherlands, Italy and the United Kingdom were never examined. Therefore, the system of production records for export refunds in the United Kingdom—not according to the Labour party or the Euro-sceptics, but according to the Court of Auditors—was "not adequately covered".
  Another aspect of the control of fraud in export refunds is the reliability of information provided by member states. Under the relevant regulations and articles, each member state is required to produce, every three months, a report notifying the European Commission of fraud cases. In three member states, such reports were not
  992
  respected: those states were Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom. How can the United Kingdom Government claim to be winning the battle against fraud when, in the crucial matter of export refunds, the Court of Auditors has criticised their record so severely?
  That is what the Court of Auditors said; but what is the United Kingdom's record over the past decade or so? I was interested by the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) that the Commission ought to stop the flow of funds to member states that are not dealing adequately with cases of fraud. That is indeed an interesting concept, but let us examine the United Kingdom's record.
  Over the past 20 years or so—the Government have been in office for most of that time—5,775 fraud cases have been reported. The Chancellor said today that the Government were giving the highest possible priority to the defeat of fraud, and that they had made most of the running in the progress made towards that end; but the UK record tells a different story. The Court of Auditors report suggests that only 27 per cent. of the amounts involved in the fraud cases identified in the United Kingdom has been recovered: in other words, nearly three quarters of those amounts went straight into the fraudsters' pockets, and remains there. The Government's complacency strikes me as staggering, and the Court of Auditors has pointed out that the result is far short of what is required.
  The common agricultural policy is responsible for the basic problem: until it is fundamentally reformed, fraud will flourish. It is a gluttonous creature, demanding to be fed, and the Government are instrumental in providing it with a financial feast. It was argued in 1992 that the reforms made in that year would put the CAP on a strict diet, but that cannot happen. We should not be fooled by the Chancellor's statement about what will happen by the end of the decade. In 1992, the CAP budget was £21.2 billion; in 1995—four years after we were promised that the reforms would deliver the goods—that budget will increase to £27.1 billion. That is a 25 per cent. increase since 1992, and it is not—as the Chancellor has claimed—a trifle; it is a scandal.
  The Chancellor said that he must amend the United Kingdom's contributions by some £720 million. Let me give some further examples of fraud. We can remain within the CAP guideline only by ignoring the annual cost of devaluation—about £ 1 billion a year—by deferring olive oil payments for future years—about £900,000 a year—and by using reserve money—about £350,000 a year. That is not contained in any document, but it is outside the guideline; it is another example of the fraudulent way in which we are trying to con the public. The CAP is loaded with fraud, and another fraud is the one being perpetrated on the British people.
  The Bill is not acceptable in the terms in which it is drafted, and I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment. The Government have failed to combat fraud; they have no effective policy to reform the CAP; and there is every sign that they will continue to pour more resources down the plughole that is the common agricultural policy.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: Time and again, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) called for the reform of the common agricultural policy

  993
  and I do not believe that a single Conservative Member would disagree with him; my point to him is that, in 1992, when a reform of the CAP last took place—again, I know of no hon. Member who would deny that that was a step in the right direction—his party gave the reform no support. That puts its record into context.
  We have heard a good deal today—and, indeed, from the media in the weeks running up to the debate—about the iniquity and wickedness of this cruel Government, who have demanded that Conservative Members vote for the Bill's Second Reading and turned the vote into a vote of confidence. Words such as "blackmail" and "bullying" have been used. A number of my hon. Friends—a small number, usually known as the Europhobes; that is one thing that the Leader of the Opposition got right—have been going from media studio to media studio complaining about the denial of freedom that has been imposed on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who is not present now, even prayed in aid the glorious names of Pym and Hampden in connection with the dreadful things that are being done.
  If that were the whole truth, it would indeed present a dreadful picture. The picture is giving serious concern to many people throughout the country and many members of party associations, but the reality is entirely different. As so often happens, that reality is being regularly and deliberately obscured by the very agency that is meant to bring enlightenment: the media have worked themselves into an ecstasy—a frenzy—about the whole episode, joining our party's Europhobes in whipping up a lather of indignation.
  In fact, there would be no need for any of this if there were any question that the Opposition operated with the slightest degree of honesty and responsibility. As has been made clear, they entirely support the objectives of own resources enlargement; we can debate the details of that issue, but the effective debate is not on that territory.
  This appears to be a debate about fraud. It is a relatively new tactic. I have good reason to believe that the Labour party, certainly, had no intention of missing what it saw as an opportunity to attack and embarrass the Government, knowing the parliamentary arithmetic which, sadly, clearly applies in the Conservative party. Labour's original tactic, or pretext, was to use the social chapter and the differences of view across the House on that subject: that was to be the casus belli of this evening's challenge. Then, riding to Labour's rescue came the report of the Court of Auditors, which was taken up on all sides—and an admirable cause it is.
  One of the many ironies in the present circumstances is that the power and impact of the Court of Auditors is now greater, thanks to what was achieved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative as a result of the Maastricht negotiations. The Court is now a Community institution and the impact of its report is therefore that much greater—although it is important to retain in context what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said about the scale of fraud. Of course, any amount of fraud is too much, but the scale of this fraud has been grossly exaggerated—although we must go on working to get it right.
  That is really just a question of parliamentary tactics, particularly on the part of the Labour party. It is, I think, a measure of the frenzy created by the present political climate that the spotlight is not on the total inconsistency of the Opposition's position: we are seeking to obfuscate
  994
  their support for the European Community and own resources enlargement, and the pretext that they are using. The Opposition use that pretext, not least because their record in combating fraud and in seeking reform of the common agricultural policy is so dreadful. Another irony is that one or two of my hon. Friends might abstain or join the two major Opposition parties in the Division Lobby when their objectives are totally opposed.
  My final point is, sadly, addressed largely to Conservative Members. Seven words in the English language are damaging at the moment to the Conservative party, to the Government and to British special interests. They are, "I am in favour of Europe, but." That attitude is sapping and damaging Britain's position in developing a Europe with which we can live and in which we can prosper.
  One or two of my hon. Friends have taken a consistent and honest position on Europe—they have said from the beginning that they oppose our membership. Of course, they are wrong and deeply misguided, but I respect their opinions and the consistency of their position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) joined that band some weeks ago at our party conference in Bournemouth. In his speech in a fringe meeting there, he seemed to accept that Britain would consistently be outvoted by 11 to one on virtually any issue. He is deeply wrong and misinformed, but at least he is now clear that he has joined the ranks of the totally negative.
  We can deal with that tiny minority in the Conservative party. It is much smaller than the minority of Labour Members against Europe. The position of Front-Bench Labour party spokesmen flops and flips and it has done so eight times in the past 10 years. At the moment, the pro-Europeans are in the ascendancy, but a large minority of Labour Members are permanently hostile to Europe and we have heard one or two of them in the debate. The minority of Conservative Members who hold such a view is small. I ask them to clarify their position and genuinely to consider it.
  Those Conservative Members go around constantly attacking Europe, ignoring its achievements and the vision and potential that Europe offers us, when three or four countries, if Norway gets it right, are knocking on the door to enter Europe, understanding that it is not just a free-trading area. Those three or four countries will become members when my hon. Friends are making it difficult for us to stay in Europe and, by implication, want us to get out. They do great harm not only to our party, but to our country.
  The sort of Europe that most hon. Members believe in has huge potential. It is a Europe of nation states, where we collaborate, where our interests are served and where we work out our own salvation where it is most sensible—at the national level. That is the principle of subsidiarity. We have a great opportunity now and we shall have a wonderful opportunity in 1996. That opportunity, however, will be destroyed unless my hon. Friends stop saying, "I am in favour of Europe, but." They should st art saying, "The sort of Europe that we believe in is …" Millions and millions of our fellow Europeans would share that sort of Europe with us.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), I think that he was not totally open when he attacked the Opposition parties for seeking to defeat the Government tonight. He knows well why the Opposition parties are lined up against the Government. It is not because we are debating extra money from the United Kingdom budget for the European Union—the opposition has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with fraud or reform of the common agricultural policy. The opposition is all to do with confidence in the Government.
  I cannot understand why, when a natural majority exists in the House for accepting the principles of the Edinburgh summit agreement, the Government have contrived to defeat themselves. I find it amazing that they have decided to make this an issue of confidence. Euro-sceptics on both sides of the House have decided to man the barricades on the issue, which, on the scale of things European, is small beer.
  When one considers the decisions that were taken from 1971 to the time of the Maastricht debates, and when one considers what choices face the United Kingdom up to 1996, the possibility of having the Whip withdrawn over a measure such as this beggars belief. I do not understand why Conservative Members have decided to man the barricades.
  Let us be clear about the decision that was taken at Edinburgh in 1992 and let us accept the reason why we should support the principle behind that decision. We should support it because the Maastricht treaty contains commitments on social and economic cohesion. There was an acceptance by countries of the European Union that, if they were to achieve economic and monetary union and if they were to improve their economic performance, they needed an increase in structural operations, including structural funds and cohesion funds.
  Plaid Cymru agrees that the own resources ceiling should be raised from 1.2 per cent. to 1.27 per cent. in 1999 to enable peripheral and poorer regions of the European Union to benefit from Union membership. We accept that that must happen. The problem we have with the Edinburgh decision is that it does not accept Wales' particular position in the new European Union.
  Hon. Members must accept that the Welsh economy, particularly the west Wales economy, has a fragile base. Many parts of rural Wales are still highly dependent on, for example, agriculture and tourism. The economy must diversify. Parts of industrial Wales have suffered from the recession and from structural changes. If all pockets of unemployment are to be reduced, the economy must diversify.
  The problem is that although, under the Edinburgh agreement, resources for structural operations will increase by 43 per cent. between 1993 and 1999, Wales will not receive the real benefit of that increase. Because we have no voice where it matters in Brussels, we are denied access to funds that will improve Wales' economic performance in the run-up to eventual economic and monetary union.
  Let us remember that countries that have objective 1 status and that can attract cohesion funds will be the real beneficiaries of the Edinburgh agreement. Let us remember that 62 per cent. of all structural funds will go to regions and nations that benefit from objective 1 status.
  996
  Some regions in the UK will benefit. The highlands and islands of Scotland will benefit for the first time under objective 1. Merseyside will benefit. Northern Ireland has benefited for at least two periods, but areas in Wales could benefit. They qualify under any objective criteria.
  Mr. Rowlands: Mid-Glamorgan is one of them.
  Mr. Jones: Yes. Gwent, Dyfed and Gwynedd are others.
  Because Wales lacks the political clout to secure objective 1 status from Brussels, the Welsh economy will suffer a net loss of at least £800 million between 1995 and 1999. If we had secured the sort of funding that the Edinburgh agreement was supposed to give peripheral and marginal areas, our economic base would have substantially improved.
  Wales would qualify also for cohesion funds, because the criterion under the Maastricht treaty is any country having a gross domestic product of less than 90 per cent. of the European Union average. Only four countries meet that criterion—Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. Wales would qualify. The cost to the Welsh economy of failing to attract cohesion funds will be at least £417 million between 1995 and 1999.
  The failure of Wales to qualify for objective 1 and cohesion funds will cause the loss of £1.2 billion between 1995 and 1999. If Wales had a proper voice in the European Union, it could have attracted those moneys. They are not extra funds. We ask only for qualification under the existing own resources decision that increased the ceiling at Edinburgh.
  We must examine the role of the Secretary of State for Wales in the damage that has been done to the Welsh economy as a result of our failing to have a proper voice in Europe. His predecessor eulogised at a Conservative party conference about what he described as a Europe of the regions. He said that Wales should play its part as a region—we would say, as a nation—in the European Union. He pioneered agreements with other European regions—Baden-Wurttemburg, Rhone-Alpes, Lombardy and Catalonia—and said that Wales should move in the same direction by having an independent, distinctive voice in the Union.
  Today, we have a Euro-sceptic as Secretary of State for Wales, who gets Euro-sceptic Back Benchers to ask him questions, so that he can say why Wales should look to Westminster rather than to Europe for its salvation. 'This afternoon, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) asked if it was true that Wales receives £6 billion a year from Westminster to pay its way. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that that £6 billion comes from the pockets of Welsh taxpayers? Wales does not receive from Westminster funds to which it has not contributed.
  The Secretary of State for Wales underestimates the contribution that Europe can make to the future of the Welsh economy. He denies us access to funds to improve our transport and technology infrastructure, so that Wales could play a full role on the European stage. Wales can flourish within the Union only if it continues to enjoy its own identity and breaks free of the shackles of the centralised British state.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and

  997
  Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said that we all brought our own impedimenta to this debate. I confess to bringing my own intellectual bags and baggage. It may be that right hon. and hon. Members say that I habitually travel light. So be it. I admit, however, to a fundamental and deep preconception against the Bill
  In many studios and numerous forums over the past few days, I have been asked how I will vote. I answered that I am against the principle of the Bill but would listen to the debate and make up my mind according to the arguments. Having done so, I hold to my original belief that the proposed legislation is neither in the interests of my country nor to the benefit of my constituents.
  Last Wednesday, my Conservative association's executive committee wrote asking me to give an undertaking that I would support the Government in all votes which they deemed to be issues of confidence. I replied that I could only give my constituents my integrity and judgment—that I would, in the last resort, do that which I believed to be right.
  The matter has been extraordinarily escalated by the Government. When I watched television on Saturday night, 1 saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). I canvassed for him at a Lambeth by-election, and at Richmond in 1983 when he just squeezed home. He is a constituent of mine and has been a friend for many years. I heard him suggest that Conservative Members who vote against the Government, abstain or even seek to amend legislation were in danger of disciplinary action, losing the Whip and, by implication, being deselected.
  Being deselected is an occupational hazard—much less hazardous than some I have known in my past. In any case, it is no bad thing for Members of Parliament to be answerable to their electorate at all times, and I wholeheartedly welcome that. However, the extraordinary congruence of events over the past weeks and days has compelled me even more urgently and insistently to obey my conscience.
  The Government, blithely and apparently happily, forwent the Conservative commitment to privatise the Post Office, did not press ahead with privatising national air traffic control services, and did not seem to mind that their long-stated commitment to making it easier to mobilise our reserve forces was not to feature in a Bill. Yet they chose to press ahead with this legislation which in my judgment, as I said in the letter to my constituency executive, is not recognisably Conservative.
  It is with a heavy heart and some sadness that I say that my original view has not been shaken. Let us consider the financial perspective. How can it be right for a Conservative party that believes—if it believes in anything these days—in controlling public spending to allow an extra 3.3 per cent. in real terms to be assigned per annum to Brussels until the end of this decade? It goes against everything that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has suggested. As others have remarked, my right hon. and learned Friend will be seeking in his Budget tomorrow to impose cuts in future spending plans.
  My right hon. and learned Friend then said, and I refer directly to his speech, that only one of his hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), whose perspicacity in the matter as well as her tenacity and courage I admire—had complained about the cost of
  998
  the Edinburgh deal when the statement was made to the House after the Edinburgh summit. This was hardly surprising, since at that time all our attention was focused on the fact that our Danish friends had voted no in their referendum and we were wondering what arrangement would be cobbled together to secure a different outcome for them in their next referendum.
  On amendments, is it really so awful for Conservatives—honest Conservatives, loyal Conservatives, trustworthy Conservatives—to say that it is inappropriate for us to pass such an amendment as that tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition? It reads:
  "That this House believes that the European Communities (Finance) Bill is not an acceptable measure as it increases United Kingdom contributions to the European Union without action by Her Majesty's Government to cut fraud and waste in Europe or to reduce expenditure on the Common Agricultural Poiicy."
  I do not want to personalise the matter or to refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but I see no way in which one could soft-shoe shuffle around this. It was put to me in a television studio this morning, "Your party, Mr. Wilkinson, are in danger of being labelled as sleaze bags." The proposed legislation does to some degree by statute institutionalise fraud. This will be the case unless efficient and effective methods to curb fraud are put in place before the Bill's enactment. So I do take the amendment seriously.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) referred to the true cost of membership of the EEC. In his speech there was no sleight of hand about what additional money over and above that previously anticipated we would have to finance. He referred to the true cost up to the end of the decade. The opportunity cost, too—inasmuch as the gross contribution—is just as important as the net cost. It is a fact, is it not, that every penny devoted to Brussels is fuel to the motor of European integration. The motor of European integration is fired and fuelled by our taxpayers' money at a time when—perhaps tomorrow it will be confirmed—our taxpayers will see VAT on domestic fuel doubled and other imposts will be applied from the next financial year. Many taxpayers have suffered deeply in the recession, which was intensified by our membership of the exchange rate mechanism.
  We heard speeches from the right hon. Members for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—all of them honest gentlemen and all of whom were respected Ministers in Labour Administrations. They have seen over the years how the institutions of the Community work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) referred to the Johnny-come-latelys—those were not his words, but we can refer to ourselves as such—who have only recently understood how much the EEC would cost, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who has always comprehended what the EEC was about and how much it would cost. For me, the Damascus road conversion came when, following the first Danish referendum result, I read the Maastricht treaty. It is plain to see—for all who would read it—that it is a blueprint for a united states of Europe. The more money we provide—the Bill is an example—the nearer the day will come when we are part of a super-state without our fellow countrymen ever having had a chance to express their opinion.

  999
  I rest my case on this final point. One of the most treasured, most valued, most prized and most important responsibilities of the House is the voting of supply, which we do by tradition annually. The Bill seeks not quite to grant a blank cheque to Europe, but if the rate of growth continues to be as high as it is now—way above that predicated in December 1992, when the original decision was taken—it will mean a substantial transfer of resources from our fellow countrymen, to their detriment, not only to the wasteful and in some instances corruptly managed central institutions of the embryo European super-state but, through cohesion and structural funds, to Portugal, Spain, Greece, southern Italy, and so on, for industries to be developed there which will grow and compete and put our own people in this country out of work. In those circumstances, how can one say that we are acting as loyal Conservatives and responsible Members of Parliament if we renege on our traditional duties to our constituents and allow ourselves, as this Bill proposes, to bind future Parliaments which will succeed us?
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a very nice man. I have never had cause to exchange a single cross word with him. He has always been a good listener, but that reputation accords ill with his behaviour over the proposed legislation before us. I believe that he has said that one of his great political heroes, apart from lain Macleod, for whom I share his admiration—his rhetoric was formidable and was certainly an inspiration to many, including myself—was Neville Chamberlain. To me, and for the Conservative party, today was as climactic a moment as when the anti-appeasers stood their ground over Munich in 1938. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who, at a private meeting—I beg his indulgence if I quote him in his absence—said that we should remember that Winston had to face a vote of confidence in his own constituency when he voted against the Government over Munich.
  We must not take analogies too far, but it seems to me that Her Majesty's Government bow down and appease Brussels all the way along the line and the danger is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, like Neville Chamberlain, will be swept away from office, perhaps as a consequence of his weakness, some two years hence. My only hope is that our party will not be swept to destruction in that same tidal wave. I believe that, if we stand our ground and hold fast to what we believe to be right today, we are much less likely to be so.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned Neville Chamberlain. I happen to remember the said gentleman as Prime Minister. People said that he was very good for Birmingham but he could not deal with foreign affairs. Perhaps that might be the same with the present Prime Minister, the nice gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman referred just now.
  The hon. Gentleman refocused our attention on supply. The European Community constantly reiterates its basic democracy. I would challenge whether, in fact, our form of democracy is at all compatible with the treaty's. I believe that Government after Government will be entangled in treaties that are incapable of providing the fruit that they promise, because of their constitutional
  1000
  structure, which prevents some hon. Members from doing what they want in this country and which I believe does not allow the Labour party to do what it would wish to if such treaties did not exist. The difference between Neville Chamberlain's situation and the present is that whereas Chamberlain was up against armed force, all Prime Ministers and all Governments of this country for the foreseeable future, unless the position changes, will be fighting the treaties, which are difficult to alter. That is the problem that will face any Government.
  The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), a former Treasury Minister, reminded us that this was economic warfare. Indeed it is, because the treaties set up economic warfare and economic competition. The Conservative party believes in economic competition in this country and pretty well everywhere else. If there is to be economic competition, one has to have a legislative framework. Once the legislative framework has been set, by democratic means one hopes, one knows where one is. The trouble with the treaties is that they get negotiation and legislation hopelessly tangled together. The framework of the economy, in terms of legislation, gets tangled up with finance and we find ourselves in constant difficulty.
  Truth is supposed to be one of the first casualties of war. Unfortunately, truth has become the casualty of the treaties and of the economic warfare within the Community. That has been vividly illustrated today. A former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), has confessed to us that the granting of substantial sums to eastern Europe for reconstruction was done over a dinner table. Is that the way in which to vote money? Of course not. Did we know about that? No, but we know the truth now because more and more hon. Members with experience are spilling the beans.
  What about Edinburgh? We are told tonight, "Oh, under the Edinburgh arrangement, we had to pay up because we had to ensure that the Spaniards would move forward with Europe." Why should there always be a succession of changes in the European Community? Why does it have to introduce yet another move towards centralisation before the previous move has been assessed and before its results have been analysed? There is an answer to that question, which I shall not venture tonight, although we must bear that point in mind.
  As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, when the Edinburgh summit was announced, we were told that the discussions would concern the Danes, enlargement and this, that and the other. We now hear that the agreement was made to keep the Spaniards on side and to reconstruct eastern Europe. That is why the Government then agreed not just to retention of the rebate—that is fine for the moment—but to an expansion of the expenditure envelope. That is what we now discover two years on.
  The truth is a casualty even inside the Cabinet. I heard the Secretary of State for Defence say on television last week that the Bill was a treaty commitment. I intervened during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to remind him and, indeed, the Chancellor—who has reminded us that he does not know what the treaty is about—about the nature of that commitment. The Chancellor said that the Bill was a treaty commitment and I pointed out that article 201 of

  1001
  the Maastricht treaty makes it exclusively the responsibility of each country's legislature, in our case this House.
  Article 201 says that after consulting the European Parliament on the proposals, the Council, acting unanimously,
  "shall lay down provisions … which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  That was to happen after the proposal had been put to the Council and to the Edinburgh summit. In other words, far from saying that it is a constitutional duty of the House to pass the Bill, the treaty gives the House the option to say no. It also gives the House the option to say no to supply or, as the Labour amendment says, the option to say no unless and until action is taken on fraud, waste and the common agricultural policy. The amendment does not wipe out the possibility of enactment altogether. Unless a legislative assembly or a democratic body representing taxpayers has the ability to control expenditure, both in taxation and the distribution of expenditure, it cannot control the Government.
  The Government, by coming along tonight on the basis of confidence, are confessing that in earlier negotiations, behind closed doors and in secret, they committed the House and the country to expenditure. The Government say that the Bill is so important for future negotiations that they will have to face that for the good of the country, they must get it through, whatever its merits, and eschew the opportunity of saying, "unless and until there is better control of misappropriation and fraud, and better this and better that."
  If the House agrees to a Second Reading tonight, it will break one of the historic and fundamental defences of the citizens of this country because it will be agreeing supply reluctantly. In some ways, that is redolent of the supply that used to have to be granted to the monarch. Parliament used to have to supply the deficit in the monarch's own accounts from the revenues that it collected. It supplied the difference between the monarch's accounts and his expenditure. That is the basis of what we are now doing.
  I want to be a little more popular in my remaining points. What I have said will be clear to those in the House today, but I am sure that the public are completely foxed by what has been going on in the past few weeks. Unless I was a Member of this House, I think that I would be foxed. Even now, I am not altogether sure of certain things because the arithmetic is so complex, and so on. We do not know what the extra payment will be. As the Chancellor himself told us, the figure is calculated retrospectively and it depends on so many economic factors that we do not know what it will be.
  I used to have a constituent whom I will call Bob who is, unfortunately, no longer with us. He was a gatekeeper at Tate and Lyle and he had been in the forces. He used to question me closely on these matters. When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was negotiating all this, he came to a halt and Lord Rippon came to a stop. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and President Pompidou had a chat and after that chat, negotiations went ahead. Bob said to me, "That Pompidou, he saw Mr. Heath coming." Bob would say to me now, "Why is the House having to do this?" I would say, "Because it is like a cheque that has to have two signatures. Mr. Major signed two years ago in Edinburgh and he is now asking us, as the second
  1002
  signatory, to sign. The problem is that we did not understand at the time—and it was not made clear—why our country was signing it. We have the right not to sign it."
  Bob would say, "But look, we are going to get more back, aren't we? All this money is coming back to us." I would say, "Not exactly because at the moment, we are paying much more in than we get back." The 1992 figures tell their own story. Gross contribution is £6.7 billion, receipts are £2.8 billion and net receipts are £3.9 billion. The rebate is £1.8 billion and the final net contribution is £2.1 billion. That rebate is all important, as has been admitted. Bob would say, "That's all right. It is in the treaty, isn't it?" I would say, "Sorry, Bob, but the answer is no. It runs out in 1999."
  Bob would ask, "What happens then?" I would say, "I happen to know that the Germans are very keen on doing something about the situation, not just with us, but with France, because they are the major contributors and Germany is a bigger country than the United Kingdom. The Germans have said that they do not want the situation to continue into the next century." Bob would say, "Surely people understand that. It is only a leasehold." I would say, "Ah, Bob, but the EC works like this. It works by the current politicians getting off the hook by providing future politicians with insoluble problems. When we get to a problem, the reason why a decision was taken will have been forgotten and the people responsible will have retired and be out of the way." It happens like that time and again.
  I believe that Bob has a point. One of the problems is that everywhere in the country—we know this from our constituencies—we are offered funds. Funds are not just being misapplied, as we know, but are questionable. The other day, the Select Committee on European Legislation discussed a proposal relating to education. The proposal said that 1996, the year of the great treaty, will be the year of lifelong education and the European Community will spend the equivalent of £6 million telling us, all over the Community, that education in life is so important. There is hardly a person in this country who would not agree with that. Of course it is important. Is that money going towards further or adult education? No, yet the EC is telling us through agencies, through advertising, through projects and distribution and conferences just how important education is. That is the sort of thing for which we may have to pay.
  Bob would say, "Well Nigel, that is not very good, but, of course, we still have our foreign policy, haven't we?" I would say, "Well no, not exactly, Bob. We now have a common foreign policy." Bob would say "Well, what about the United Nations and the Security Council?" I would say, "Well, I am afraid that that is common as well because we have a common foreign policy. We sort of co-ordinate life and we have an obligation to that".
  Bob was an ex-service man and he would say to me, "What about our Army? We have the Army and the Queen is the head of the Army. Surely we can send our soldiers where we like." I would say, "Well, I would like to think that. But in any peace operation, for anything such as the tragedy that we are now seeing in the former Yugoslavia, there is a common policy." He would say, "Who would make the decision? Would ii be our Parliament, or the Queen?" I would say, "No, I am sorry, Bob. It would be the Union president." He would ask, "Who is the Union president?" I would say, "Well, we do

  1003
  not know." Bob would say, "What do you mean, you don't know? Surely you, Nigel, know all about the EC. Who is the Union president?" I would say, "It changes every six months." "Oh," he would say, "so in 1996 or 1997, when we have to send some troops somewhere and it is under the European Union, not the United Nations or NATO, and we do not know how it will work out, to whom will they be accountable?" I would say, "Under the treaty terms that we have now signed, they will be accountable to the president of the Union for that six months." Bob would say to me, "Nigel, are you mad or are you telling me the truth?" I would say, "Unfortunately, Bob, I am telling you the truth."
  I do not think that any hon. Member in the House would challenge anything that I have said in respect of fact in my speech. We have a Black Rod of Brussels who knocks on the door of this Chamber. The Black Rod of Brussels is summoning us not to a legislative assembly, one which we in the end control, but to decisions which have been made behind closed doors by the princes of Europe—those now and in the future.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is right. The country is confused. Two weeks ago, the Government began with a putative majority of 500— 500— on this issue. By the end of last week, we were into a suicide pact. Yet the atmosphere in the House is hardly the thought that the Government will—remotely—lose tonight. There is no sense of urgency about it; it is a nonsense found out. I cannot explain to anyone why hon. Members may have the Whip withdrawn, or why the Government perceive a crisis on this issue, above all other issues, in their legislative programme. I merely reflect on the curiosity of it. I shall return to that point a little later.
  I shall look at two statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have not discussed European finance in the terms that we have a control over it, or that we may stop the sending of money, taxes, tariffs, or levies to Brussels, since 1988. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said of the taxation of the United Kingdom by Brussels, "It is utterly beyond the control of this House." That was his statement during his powerful speech this afternoon. He has actually sounded the death knell of the House, has he not? We were founded on the control of supply, so that our citizens would bear the charges and impulse of Government for the purposes of this country and that we had the final word on it. "No, no," says the Chancellor, "it is now utterly beyond the control of this House."
  I have no vanity about that in a personal sense. The Chancellor means that taxation is now utterly beyond the control of the electorate, the people, the citizens of this country who make our industry and our wealth. They are now taxed by treaty and sent to a foreign capital, Brussels, as I see it, without any intervention from the House and with no annual review, which the Government currently have to face in seeking the funds to maintain our own institutions and our own patterns of expenditure. No, no, this is more sacred than that, because we may not interfere.
  All I conclude from those words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is: give Brussels a penny more, and the day after tomorrow, when the Bill has been passed, no
  1004
  matter the fraud, waste or deception, he will again announce that those moneys, cast aside in one evening, are now also utterly beyond the control of this House, and therefore the people. Perhaps the Cabinet will reflect that that may be the source of discontent which ignites this nation on the European issue. Once a passage has been made, that is irrevocable and irreversible if the bureaucrats and the unelected people who now govern us in fundamental law have their way. That was what the noble Lady Thatcher meant when she said that it was a ratchet and that once it gained one inch, it was for ever given. That is what we have seen in Europe.
  When I first came to the House, this Europe did not have the presumption or the pretension that it could tax us directly without us having a word, without us being able to say that the exigencies of Britain, our care, or our interests in our own people, must come first. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made light of the costs of the membership of a club and, of course, concentrated, as all Governments have, on merely the net contribution. I was thrilled when my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the former Chancellor—it always takes the leaving of office to discover truths; it is one of the most remarkable things in this House—discovered the quantum. If I were to demur from anything that he said, I would say that he took Lady Thatcher's abatement out of the quantum. In point of fact, under the Community taxation rules, we have to pay the full quantum, so that by 1996–97, it will be £10.3 billion. Then, one year later, the rebate will be paid back. Therefore, the burden of taxation in the current year falls on us all as the total quantum. As my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out, are those objectives and matters on which we should necessarily spend our own money? That is a question that is properly for the House of Commons.
  Forgive me for particularising, but I thought that wonderful speeches were made by two Opposition Members. One was made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), to which we have become used, and the other was made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). They reminded us of what the essential heart of our institution is about. If we cannot control money, we cannot control our own Government. Yet, our own Government turn round to us and blithely say that those controls are now utterly beyond the control of this House and therefore of the people. That is why this is a fierce debate in one sense. We believe in the rights of our electorate and, as many hon. Members have said, we believe that we are here only because people have put trust in us to express honourably and truthfully what we feel on the great public policy issues of our day.

  Why, of all the measures, has it been decided that this is a confidence measure? I am rather old-fashioned. My view is that if a Government propose a measure, it is defeated and they believe that the loss of that measure is so profound to their existence, they should stand by a separate confidence motion. That used to be the tradition of the House. The danger to the House is that if the Government start particularising every piece of legislation as a confidence motion, in the short term, they can bring about the ruin of their country and, in the long term, they can bring about their own ruin.
  Every Conservative treats this issue solemnly because of the fear that, in the balance of judgment in the cabal of Cabinet members, who sat together and weighed up the

  1005
  issues, they came to the conclusion—whether due to spite, not fact—that the destruction of my party and of the constituency associations across the country would be the consequences of the Government not getting their way on what Americans would call merely a line amendment to the budget. We are considering a small matter, almost immaterial in public expenditure. So we all ask ourselves why the Government draw the line on this one issue—note that it is not the debate next week about VAT on domestic fuel. If the Government lose that measure, that is just a small part of an overall Budget. The House has not denied the Government the funds to maintain the government of this country and its institutions. One ponders why, and we must listen very carefully to what the Government have to say in that regard.
  My second bite at the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he said that we are talking about a major international agreement. Other hon. Members have referred to the nature of this major international agreement. Let us be quite clear: this is not the end of the cold war as in Paris; this is not a meeting between Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Reagan agreeing on solemn undertakings in the advancement of our international benefit.
  This is now meant to be a Community in which, I regret, my own Front Bench insisted on us all becoming citizens together. When the Council issued its direction four weeks ago that the process should come forward, that Council comprised common citizens of a Union to which I am not attracted.
  How can one argue that one's common citizen—one's neighbour—has formed a solemn international agreement? One cannot do that. That is part of the deception with such arguments. One can use the argument one way or the other. I am now very used to that from Front-Bench spokesmen. They say one thing today and another tomorrow, and they hope that we do not notice the difference. They have a pretty good stab at reconciling matters.
  What we now have is jovial bluff. We are told that this is a solemn international agreement with citizens sitting around the table prepared to divvy up, in an unchallengeable fashion for a period of time, indefinite in the memories of this House, and forward for years, a certain source of finance. That is the solemn international agreement, but it is not borne out by the treaty. That is a proper mechanism which supports, according to the treaty and our own domestic law, the supremacy of the House in these matters.
  The Government must follow the traditional methods and constitutional arrangements of this country, as must each other respective member of the Union. There -is nothing odd about that. As I said, we shall have a vote on VAT next week. The Government do not threaten resignation if they lose the increase in VAT. In fact, I rather suspect that there would be a cheer from Conservative Benches if that occurred.
  One should reflect on why, in all the legislative programme, this one tiny issue is set out. I am going to suggest something that I find very uncomfortable. We are governed by a cabal that is federalist in its intentions. It has told us, "Softly, softly, catchee monkey." It has told us over the years, "We resist." However, I listened to a Labour Government and read a Labour White Paper which said that if we were to vote for common
  1006
  arrangements for free trade, we should not believe that we would lose control over anything as we had an absolute veto on everything.
  The Foreign Secretary does not have a view on anything in these matters. He is an agnostic on the single currency. On the other hand, a powerful, young and thrusting hopeful in Cabinet tells me that he thinks that this is dreadful and that it will have consequences. With the brio from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he understands why we should join. What guidance. On the one hand, yes; on the other hand, no and, from the Foreign Secretary, "I'm an agnostic." No wonder there is concern and disbelief about the Government's position.
  It is a matter of, "Not by my words do you judge me, but by my deeds." Since I have been a Member of this place, we started from a position of very little government from Europe. We are ending up with a formidable body of law in respect of which the Chancellor says that it is utterly beyond the reach of this House. The constitutional position is wrong if he is right. However, I know that he is wrong: it is within the reach of this House.
  What do we do about this? We are confronted with the fact that we no longer have a free choice in the matter. I can speak only for myself. However, I was first chosen by good and honourable people. I was elected by an electorate whom I hold to be good and honourable. Like every other hon. Member, I have tried to honour those relationships. If the Government think that by stuffing my mouth with gold or offers of reward, or by withdrawing the Whip, they can alter the first trust in a democracy—that of a Member and his constituency—they misjudge their party and the Members of this House.

  We must be true to ourselves, or the electorate will have no confidence in the most important institution in our democracy—a free Parliament. In the end, that is what I stand by. I do not wish to see a Government go down. We know that that is a fatuous proposition: they will not go down. How have we got into this state? I ask the House to reflect on the men who comprise the Cabinet and to think: is their judgment sound in these matters that they can create turmoil of this nature?
  I do not want the Government to go because I believe that the programmes that we have set out and that we have struggled to accomplish are worth while and appropriate. However, I say this in a personal vein so that they may understand the agony that they have placed on their own hon. Members: how could I face my electorate, when clearly I have stood before them and said, "I stand not for giving money to something that is corrupt."? From the time I was born until today, I have been told that if people spend money foolishly, withhold the source of the funds. That was a principle of this House. Where do we stand without it?
  The Government have misjudged the temper of their own nation and they have misjudged the truthful intent of their own party. They will see people go through the Lobby, but in their hearts they are damned.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I had not planned to speak in this debate, but so many of the speeches have been so utterly depressing that I felt that I needed to say something that sounded pro-European Union and not like a lot of anti-European rhetoric. However, I must confess that some of the views are

  1007
  sincerely held. In particular in that regard, I am thinking of the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to whom I always listen with great interest.
  We are in an absurd position today. We have business before the House that one would normally expect to go through almost on the nod. It comprises several European Union documents which people generally have great difficulty reading because they are so thick and because they are usually out of date. One usually takes very little notice of them.
  This sort of legislation should go through almost on the nod. However, the Government have tabled their motion and, because of the controversy to which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referred, the Labour party could not resist challenging the vote of confidence—terruption.] Labour will not win the confidence vote. I am not sure what the business managers are saying, but I am sure that many Labour Members will abstain on the main Question. The Government will get their business.
  I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members accept that fraud and waste must be tackled. No one would disagree with that. I would expect tough initiatives on this matter. The Chancellor seemed rather sanguine about the way things were happening. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would describe the Government's position on this point and tell us whether they are satisfied with the current policies and whether they will work and be effective.
  By the time of the intergovernmental conference in 1996, I hope that we will not have to include things in a Maastricht mark 2 treaty document on this point. By then, I hope that the policies will be in place and that we will have an effective system of monitoring and surveillance.
  The key—the heart—of this matter is the future development of the European Union. Like the majority of hon. Members and, I believe, the majority of people in Britain, I want the European Union to develop, not to hesitate, not to be held back and not to unravel in any way. The stakes are far too high.
  The future of the European Union for us is very important, socially and economically and from the point of view of peace, foreign affairs, matters of the interior, co-operation, and so on. That is absolutely vital, and the money must be forthcoming, particularly since, as I notice in the motion, that part of the money will be for expansion of the European Union. I find the notion of expansion exciting. All countries in the European Union will work for the benefit not only of European Union countries but of other parts of the world, particularly poorer countries.
  Much has been made of Edinburgh, but the Edinburgh summit took place. The aim was to have a financial structure. One has to have that because it is impossible to plan something the size of the European Union without having some stability in one's finances. One has to be able to plan. I therefore believe that it is necessary to ensure that the Government succeed tonight and that the European Communities (Finance) Bill is passed.
  I now refer to democracy. People talk about giving up our sovereignty. I prefer to use the "pooling". [Laughter.] There is giving and taking. Some hon. Members do not accept that. They do not believe in the European Union—I do. We all differ on that point. Just as the hon. Member
  1008
  for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) will argue his case in his own way, I shall argue in my way. The future of my children and their children is in the European Union, which I want to work economically, but I also want it to create the basis of peace. In the first and second world wars, 30 million people died. The creators of the European Union—the people in the early days—said, "We must stop German nationalism. We must nail the feet of the Germans to the ground so that they cannot embark on any more wars." That was the basis.
  When one pools sovereignty, one must have a development of democracy. There is a democratic deficit in the European Union. It still has structures that are synonymous with an early institution, and quite centralised powers. Those powers must be spread. I hope that there will be much on that point in the treaty document that comes out of the 1996 IGC.
  There has been talk about referendums. We had our referendum in 1975, and the majority was massive. The people of Britain decided then that our future was in the European Union—the European Common Market, as it was then called. Since the treaty of Rome, we have had further treaties. We have had the treaty on the single market and the Maastricht treaty. There will be another treaty in 1996. All those treaties are mechanisms for the development of the European Union. I look forward to the 1996 IGC and to debating beforehand what will be the key issues in it.
  Many hon. Members who attended the Maastricht debate resented—perhaps "resented" is too strong, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, handled the duties of the Chair brilliantly during those difficult times—being presented with that thick blue document. Whether hon. Members are Euro-sceptics or pro-European Union, many felt that to be presented with such a document as a fait accompli was just not good enough. It is important that there is an opportunity for all Parliaments of the European Union in some way to be able to take part in such debates rather than be presented with a fait accompli.
  Mr. John Townend: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the purpose of the previous referendum was to stop the Labour party tearing itself apart? Therefore, would it not be equally fair now to have a referendum to stop the Conservative party tearing itself apart? Does the hon. Gentleman agree also that people voted to stay in—not to go into—an economic community? If they thought that they were voting to stay in what was going to become a federal state run from Brussels, with Westminster becoming a county council, many would not have voted yes in that referendum.
  Mr. Randall: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. One can always have new terms of reference for a referendum—one can have a new set every week and still not be satisfied—but that is what happened. It worries me that the leadership on both sides are talking now about the possibility—the glint—of a referendum. Personally, I am against that. It would cause turmoil and it would stop development of the European Union, and that is not desirable. I would not want Labour or the Conservatives even to put a reference to a referendum in their manifestos for the next election. That would be completely wrong.
  When it comes to debating the issues rather than being presented with the blue document—this is entirely my own view, based on informal discussions with other European Union politicians—as soon as the French

  1009
  presidential elections are over, and we can speculate on who can win, the Germans and the French will be setting the pace and we will be confronted with some important decisions. France and Germany could race ahead and challenge Britain on what it will do, and the question of a two-track Europe could come up. I should be very disillusioned if, in any way, the future of Britain were risked by Britain being put into the second track of a European Union.
  On the balance of power, the doctrine of subsidiarity, which was debated with the Maastricht treaty, has not been taken far enough. It is a crucial element. The two new pillars or new powers that we have are very important. I refer to defence and foreign policy and home affairs.
  On monetary and economic union, from the point of view of business, we must have a stable currency. My own view is that monetary and economic union will come as surely as night follows day. I want far greater co-operation, and I want a central bank to have the discipline that we want. I want to see great co-operation at European level, particularly in respect of high-technology products such as in the aerospace and information industries.
  We on the left of British politics used to argue—I regret that we do not do so as much as we used to—about internationalism. The Common Market and the European Union have in some way eliminated that. I regard the European Union as crucial in developing poorer countries, not only in the European Union but outside it. Countries have benefited greatly. I appreciate that, and I welcome in particular the development in the size of the European Union. I regard the matter as a great opportunity. The 1996 IGC is crucial. I want to see those arguments put on the table. It is important that we have a stable financial structure which will allow planning to take place. That is what the motions before us tonight seek to ensure. We do not want there to be any hiccups in the future development of the European Union.
  8.50 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened the debate on the European Communities (Finance) Bill, he paid me the small but singular compliment of saying that I had been consistently opposed to giving more money to Europe; so my colleagues will not be surprised to learn that I do not intend to break my record in that respect this evening.
  Tonight we are asked to vote for more money for Europe; we are not asked to stop it receiving the vast sum that it has been allocated already. When I listen to the debates in the House, and particularly those speakers on the Front Bench who talk of what percentages they did or did not manage to achieve, my mind drifts away from that technical stuff to my constituents who come to my surgery to relate their financial problems. An extra fiver or a tenner in their pay packets would make a good deal of difference to their standard of living and would reduce their worries.
  I think also about the business men in my constituency. They tell me that the backs of their businesses have been broken either by regulations or by the gratuitous expenses imposed on them by the European Union. They do not come to me whining and moaning and asking for Government help; they come to me bewildered that
  1010
  Parliament allows the accretion of expensive bureaucratic items which are paid for with taxpayers' money. The bureaucrats who make the decisions that affect people so dramatically are paid handsomely from the money that we ask the British people to contribute towards the European budget.
  I sometimes listen to my colleagues who tell me that the money that we give to Europe is only a small fraction of our budget—they say that Europe is not an expensive club at all. They ask: why grumble about it? Why not talk about the European Union's achievements? But I ask myself: what achievements? What are these achievements and why does the British population not appreciate them?
  When I walk the streets of Billericay or other parts of my constituency or when I take a train from London to Cambridge, as I did on the weekend, why do people not boo at me for resisting the idea of this European organisation? Why do complete strangers compliment me on my resistance to giving any money to it? Why do the British people, foolish creatures that they are—almost 52 million of them, if I am to believe some of the speeches that have been made in the House—think that there is something wrong with our giving more money to this institution?
  The people of Britain did not fully understand the deep and profound issues of Maastricht, but they understand this issue. They understand that their hard-earned money is being taken from them and given to an institution which we are told is riddled with fraud. But fraud or no fraud, I would not support giving more money to Europe because I do not think that we have a mandate to do so—especially when we are presented with a fait accompli on the issue and we Conservatives are told that we face an enormous sacrifice almost for even querying whether we should give Europe more money.
  It has been said several times before, but I want to say it again, that the House is founded on the belief that the people shall not be taxed without their consent; yet we are told by our own Prime Minister that that idea was lost when we made a deal with Europe and the Prime Minister decided, on the British people's behalf, that they would be taxed to enable the Government to give more money to the European Union. I think that that is profoundly wrong and it is not the sort of policy that people in my constituency send me here to support.
  Many things have been said about those of us who resist the legislation. It is said that we are petulant or difficult, or perhaps slightly crazy. Those sorts of things were said about others in the past. The barons who resisted King John over the Magna Carta were criticised. King Charles came to the House, criticising those Members of Parliament who wished to prevent him from taxing the British people without their consent and demanding that they be brought before him.
  Although those of us who resist the legislation may not survive as Members of Parliament, I think that we will have made our mark in putting up a strong case for refusing to give money to a European organisation that is clearly not loved by the British people. We are told that, whatever we say, it does not matter because the deal has been done already.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that a solution to the problem would be to hold a referendum? Even now, it might not be too late for the

  1011
  Government to make a commitment to hold a referendum after the intergovernmental conference in 1996 so that we go no further, particularly in relation to a single currency.
  Mrs. Gorman: I agree in principle with my hon. Friend: the people should be consulted about the issue. There has never been any consultation. We joined the European Union believing that we were entering a common market. Even in that, we have been disappointed because the European Community is not an open and free market; it is a cartel. Brussels dictates all aspects of our business life. The level playing field concept is nonsense, because competition is about comparative advantage.
  When we joined Europe, we believed that we would be sharing in the economic miracle of the post-war European scene, but policies in Europe today are hell-bent on destroying even those conditions that made Europe appear attractive to Britain.
  The European Community costs the British people £7 billion a year. None of us can grasp fully what that means. It means that 3.5p in every pound from taxation goes to the European Community. If we did not pay that money to Europe, we could halve VAT and do away completely with VAT on fuel. If we were so minded, we could increase old-age pensions by £7. Those would be enormous advantages for the British people, but we will not see them because the money is going elsewhere.
  The British people will not thank us for giving money to pay for the extravagances of our European partners—whether they are roadways through Portugal or irrigation schemes in Spain. How does that advantage the British people to whom we are responsible? It does not advantage them in the slightest, and the British people understand that. They support those of us who resist the move to give more money to Europe.
  I urge the House, although I realise that I am speaking to closed minds, to decide that we will not give the European Union a penny more, even if it puts its house in order. Until the British people exercise their enthusiasm through the vote, and by turning out to vote in European elections—we all know that fewer than 30 per cent. of our citizens do so—and until they are given a say in whether they wish to hand over authority to the Government of the day, we shall never be able to say that we are doing these things in the name of the British people. Therefore, I shall not support the measure tonight.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Tonight's debate is about much more than the Conservatives' difficulty being the Opposition's opportunity. The fact that we are debating a matter of confidence tonight was demonstrated by the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). If one listened closely to what he said, it was clear that his speech was a devastating indictment of the stewardship of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Among other phrases that he used, the hon. Gentleman referred to those on the Treasury Bench as a cabal. Those are the people who are running our country and who have control of policy on Europe. Therefore, we are discussing the
  1012
  competence of the Government. Demonstrably, we and the people whom we represent have no confidence whatever in the Government.
  When one listens to the tortured, agonising speeches of people such as the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), one realises what a state the Government are in. It is our duty to say that they have had their chance. They have been running the country's European policy for 15 years. There are others who could do better. We would not start from here. [Interruption.] I shall be coming to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) in a moment. All the matters that hon. Members have complained about were to a large extent shaped by Lady Thatcher, the present Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. They are to blame. If there was a change of Government, in future my right hon. Friends would harmonise the interests of Europe with those of the United Kingdom. We could take a lesson from President Mitterrand, who combined and promoted the best interests of France and the international perspective. That is what is lacking in the United Kingdom's policy.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe referred to the sapping and damaging references of his hon. Friends and said that they diminished our influence in Europe. Exactly so. That further underlines the fact that many Conservative Members are inadequate to promote the best interests of the United Kingdom and Europe.
  Mr. Whitney: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that what most damages Britain's standing in Europe is the fact that members of his party and the Liberal Democrat party, who profess to be in favour of Britain's membership of the European Union and of the enlargement of own resources, will go through the Lobby tonight to vote against what they profess to believe in? What could be more damaging to British political integrity than that?
  Mr. Mackinlay: I do not know where the hon. Member for Wycombe has been. The Prime Minister has made this a matter of confidence. Opposition Members believe that if we were given the opportunity of being on the Treasury Bench, we could do a lot better in promoting the best interests of the United Kingdom in Europe in future negotiations as one moves towards 1996.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Mackinlay: I have limited time, but as it is my hon. Friend, I feel obliged to give way.
  Mr. Graham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there was a general election in three weeks' time, we would be elected and we would sign the social chapter, which would put millions of people in Britain in a better position to support the aims of the Common Market?
  Mr. Mackinlay: Precisely. Conservative Members do not understand that we want a slice of the action in the interests of working people. That is what they are being denied at present. We are paying the bill but not getting the benefits. That is largely because of the rather selfish interests of many Conservative Members and because our foreign policy is run by a nice man, but someone who is out of touch with the best interests of ordinary working people in Britain.

  1013
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to the Prime Minister as a nice man, but went on to criticise him. The best that can be said about the Prime Minister is that he is a nice man over-promoted. One of the leading members of Thurrock Conservative Association said on television last week that the Prime Minister was the Captain Mainwaring of British politics. He went on to use a term that I will not repeat in the House because it would be unparliamentary. Nevertheless, it reflected the yobbo tendency of the Conservative party.
  The behaviour of the Conservatives, their approach to Europe and the comments of a former vice-chairman of the Conservative party about European colleagues are all on the charge sheet against the Government.
  Opposition Members are obliged to vote against the Bill tonight to demonstrate a lack of confidence in the Government and to give those Conservative Members—many of whom I disagree with, but whose courage I respect—the opportunity to demonstrate that this is an important matter of principle.
  Hon. Members suggest that it is cynical of Labour and the other Opposition parties to vote in such a way tonight, but our politics are adversarial and we have an obligation to frustrate and bring down the Government. That is the nature of things. I wish that it were not so— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] Yes, I happen to think that our adversarial system is barmy and that many reforms need to be instituted. As there has not been a referendum on the issue, the House must decide. We also have a duty to frustrate the Government.
  In other parts of the world, treaties are signed subject to ratification by the legislature and there is a presumption that it will examine fully the implications of the treaty. That is what happens in the United States. We do not have a system or a tradition whereby it is understood that the Executive might sign or endorse a treaty, but it is subject to endorsement by Parliament or the people. That is what we lack and it is another reason why those hon. Members who broadly support the concept of Europe should join those hon. Members who oppose the Bill.
  The Government have no mandate for this legislation. That legitimately unites all Opposition Members with some Conservative Members, with whom we might disagree on some important details, but with whom we agree that a democratic mandate is necessary.
  The Bill will increase EU resources, but the Government's stewardship of existing resources has been sloppy. Forgive me for raising a constituency matter, but my area of Essex was entitled to objective 2 money, as were the constituencies of the hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). We were denied that money. The Government argued that that was due to the bureaucrats in Brussels, but this wrong also bears the fingerprints of clumsy handling by the right hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) who, as the Minister responsible for trade and industry, did not understand that Thurrock was in the Southend travel-to-work area. We were therefore denied the resources to which the social and unemployment problems on the north bank of the River Thames entitled us.
  Ministers on the Treasury Bench have grossly mishandled the distribution of funds, to the great disadvantage of my constituents and those of many other hon. Members. Time and again, we come back to the fact
  1014
  that Members who occupy the Treasury Bench are arrogant and maladroit and should go. We are presented with that opportunity tonight, if we can encourage enough Conservative Members to join us in the Lobby.
  I regret the fact that the Ulster Unionists feel unable to join us in the Lobby. They should bear in mind the fact that the Government's lack of negotiating skills has resulted in the absurd situation in which cohesion fund money is available for 26 counties in Ireland, but there is no comparable money for the Six Counties. That is profoundly foolish.
  If my right hon. and hon. Friends had been in office they would have banged on the table in Brussels and argued that there was a special case for parity of treatment for all the 32 counties of Ireland, both north and south, and that cohesion fund money should be made available for the whole of Ireland. That is one more reason why I hope that members of the Ulster Unionist party will pause and reflect on the fact that they are sustaining a Government who are not promoting the best interests of the working people of Warrenpoint, Derry or Belfast.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that there is an industrial policy in the United Kingdom which does not help us in the agricultural sector of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Mackinlay: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that cognisance will be taken of that by my right hon. and hon. Friends who, sooner or later, will occupy the Treasury Bench.
  I hope that the debate and the vote tonight will demonstrate beyond all doubt that the Government have lost the confidence of the vast majority of the people of this country, as will be demonstrated by the votes of all the Opposition parties apart from the Ulster Unionists. The Government are under notice that, sooner or later, there will be a collapse in their ranks which will precipitate a general election and the election of a Labour Government.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: There have been some fierce debates this evening and the Opposition parties have taken part as well.
  Let me make clear the principal differences between the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the one hand and the position of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and most Government Members who agree with them on the other. First, we say that this House has the right and duty to scrutinise and, as appropriate, to amend what is a substantial financial measure. The Prirne Minister is effectively seeking to deny the House that opportunity. The Bill, he says, is perfect and the House of Commons—even hon. Members informed by our constituents—cannot improve on the flawless legislation that he has set before us.
  Secondly, Labour says that the Government have not done nearly enough to combat waste and fraud in the European Union budget. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor say that they have done all that they can and they are happy to see the Bill pass into law without incorporating further action.

  1015
  Thirdly, we say that the common agriculture policy is a wasteful and economically and environmentally damaging monstrosity which must be changed, root and branch. The Prime Minister seems to think that reform is coming along nicely.
  Fourthly, we say that there have been developments since Edinburgh which warrant the House of Commons and the Government seeking further action to get European Union expenditure under proper control.
  On each of those points—scrutiny, waste, agricultural reform and developments since Edinburgh—the people of Britain and the true majority in the House agree with us, not with the Prime Minister. We speak for the British people, and he does not—it is as simple as that. That is why the House should pass the amendment tonight.
  Earlier, we had a truly extraordinary admission from the Chancellor under some considerable pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). The Chancellor admitted to the House that he could not remember when he first knew about the £0700 million increased estimates on this year's contributions to the European Union. Given that that money must be paid from the contingency reserve, and given that it represents fully one fifth of the contingency reserve—the new control total states that the contingency reserve is just £3.5 billion, and here we are talking about an extra £700 million—is not it staggering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is supposed to be in charge of the nation's finances, cannot remember when he first knew that one fifth of his reserves had gone? No wonder so much money is wasted in Europe, when the Government are not controlling it properly in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Perhaps I shall say that again when the Chancellor comes in, as he ought to hear it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East also set out how unprecedented it is for the Prime Minister to insist that every essential element of the Bill is so perfect that the House cannot improve upon it. Such an attitude, as hon. Members have pointed out during the debate, cannot be consistent with the right and duty of hon. Members to their constituencies, nor with the proper exercise of democracy.
  The Prime Minister's treatment of his own hon. Friends offers us another sign of how woefully out of touch the Government are. Cannot the Prime Minister see how the people will judge his threats to his hon. Friends? They will ask what they are to make of a Prime Minister and a Cabinet who cannot carry their colleagues with them by persuasion; cannot convince by reasoned argument; cannot appeal to the usual party loyalty; and instead try with threats simply to bludgeon their way through. So divided are the Conservative party that the only weapon that the Prime Minister can use to create a semblance of unity is the threat of defeat at an immediate general election. The Prime Minister is not deploying persuasion or debating skills against his own Back Benchers, but the traditional Conservative weapon of coercion of the past 15 years, the threat of unemployment.
  Will people say that such policy demonstrates that the Prime Minister is acting with success, based on authority and strength? No. They will say that this Prime Minister is a failure, who is acting on division and weakness. They will be right. Every time the Prime Minister deploys the
  1016
  political suicide dissolution threat—there may be more instances of that to come on the Bill and on votes on VAT which we hope to instigate—he should remember that by issuing that threat he does not make his position stronger, but weaker, because he reminds the country of the authority that he lacks. He should remember the more he twirls the chamber of the Russian roulette revolver, the more he risks finding the bullet. Perhaps the immortal words of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) were right, when he said that we all know that a suicide threat is a cry for help—that from the Prime Minister's former Chancellor.
  The Prime Minister would do well to remember that threaten though he might his hon. Friends, intimidate as he has tried to do their constituency associations, at the next general election it is the people of Billericay who will decide on their Member of Parliament. Perhaps I should repeat that for the benefit of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who is not listening, but perhaps the electorate will not choose her. The electorate will also decide whether they want to return a Conservative Government. The behaviour of the Prime Minister now will not help him when they come to make that decision.
  The value of the House should be based on the fact that hon. Members have the opportunity to bring our constituents' concerns to bear on the great issues of the day. We can seek to persuade one another, set out our case to the wider audience in the country and scrutinise and amend legislation. The Prime Minister, however, is now trying to curtail that right. My hon. Friends and I have many differences with the arguments put forward by the so-called Euro-sceptics. I part company with those of them who believe that isolation within the European Union is a viable option for Britain. I disagree still more with those who believe that it would be a good thing for Britain to attempt to shape its destiny outside the European Union. That those hon. Members are voicing important concerns, held by many people in this country, which those of us who want close and constructive involvement in Europe should at least address, is undeniable.
  One reason why the Maastricht treaty ran into trouble not just here but in Denmark, France, Germany and elsewhere is that the thinking, assumptions and constitutional ambition of the European political elite ran way ahead of the concerns and understanding of citizens throughout the European Community. The lesson for those of us who believe in the benefits of European co-operation should not be to attempt to dismiss out of hand, or crush with confidence motions, concerns about waste, over-centralisation, lack of democracy and the other imperfections of the European Union. Our task should be to show how those concerns can be answered and remedial action taken. That is precisely why our deliberations on the Bill should be informed by the amendment that my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled this evening, and it is precisely the reason why the Government's version of the Bill needs to be amended in the way that we have suggested.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Before the hon. Gentleman gets away with the conjuring trick of trying to present his amendment as a constructive measure to reduce fraud, will he answer the question that the shadow Chancellor failed to answer—

  1017
  will he admit that that is not a constructive amendment but a wrecking amendment, which would deny the progress of the Bill?
  Mr. Smith: It is a very constructive amendment, framed in circumstances in which the Prime Minister has made tonight's vote a vote of confidence.
  As I understand it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued earlier that this was a wrecking amendment because, if carried, the Bill would be lost and could not be introduced until another Session. I think that when the Chancellor said that, he had forgotten that the Prime Minister had made the vote a vote of confidence.
  If the Opposition win the vote, there will be a general election; and at that general election, the Labour party will win; and after that victory, there will be a new Session of Parliament and a Bill will be placed before the House, not simply signing up to the Edinburgh agreement, but taking the measures to tackle waste and fraud and to reform the common agricultural policy—the things that are absent from the current Government's Bill.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: In a moment. Let me make a little more progress.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, waste and fraud in the European Union are not confined to agriculture, as much of the debate has been. They happen in many other sectors. My hon. Friend cited the unacceptable waste that too often happens in the European Union overseas aid budget—it is especially tragic when part of that goes astray. Many other hon. Members have drawn our attention to the unacceptable and alarming fact that, when it comes to waste and fraud, things seem to continue to get worse rather than better.
  The Chancellor attempted to rubbish claims that the recent Court of Auditors' report showed fraud running at anything like £6 billion a year. He can do so only because the Court of Auditors did not tot up all the things that they had identified throughout their report, but those things do add up, and they amount to billions of pounds.
  Wine production has increased by 20 per cent. since 1989, despite European Union expenditure of £1 billion to take vineyards out of production. German apple growers were paid more than £180,000 to dig up their trees, which had mysteriously grown back in place when the inspectors went to find out what had happened. There
  1018
  were no competitive tenders on the new European Parliament building in Brussels and the costs increased from £781 million to £1.42 billion.
  Sir Donald Thompson rose—
  Mr. Whitney rose—
  Mr. Smith: I give way to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney).
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman said that 'wine production had increased. Is he aware that it has decreased by 34 per cent. since 1987–88?
  Mr. Smith: That is not the figure in the Court of Auditors' report and I stand by the figure that I have given of a 20 per cent. increase since 1989.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No.
  In reacting to the Court of Auditors' report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in radio interviews, and the European Commission's Secretary-General, have drawn a distinction between fraud and financial mismanagement. Opposition Members would not go along with the Secretary-General in rejecting, as he did last week, what he called "media allegations" that fraud was widespread in European budgetary spending. He should take more notice of what the Court of Auditors say. The Chancellor, like him, should be—as Opposition Members are—as worried about financial mismanagement as fraud.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, it is not so much the distinction between one and the other that matters, important though it is legally; the important fact is the sheer amount of money that is being wasted. We need to mobilise every pressure to get something done about A powerful signal should be sent to the Commission and our partners in Europe that people in this country, for years high net contributors to the European budget, are sick and tired of waste and corruption.
  Sir Donald Thompson: For the past 20 years, every Labour Minister has said that Labour will win the next general election; none has kept that promise. Let me ask another question, however. The Opposition Chief Whip went to the Government Chief Whip and said, "We think that the Edinburgh deal was a good one, although we would have done better, but we will support it only if you introduce a simultaneous Bill to fight fraud." Why did not the Opposition introduce such a Bill? They acted as they did only because they wanted to defraud the electorate.
  Mr. Smith: Much has happened since the Edinburgh summit, including a succession of Court of Auditors' reports revealing a consistently serious position.
  In tabling tonight's amendment, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were not expressing a new-found or sudden concern. Time and again, on the Floor of the House and in Committee, we have expressed our alarm at the lack of effective control on the Community budget and the need for decisive action not only to root out fraud and waste, but to gain recompense in instances where lax controls on the part of national authorities are to blame.

  1019
  We advanced that view, for instance, in our submission to the Delors consultation on growth, competitiveness and employment in Europe. What, in their submission about competitiveness in Europe, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friends have to say about waste, fraud and corruption in the European Union? Absolutely nothing; so obsessed were they with their dogma and their opposition to the social chapter that they completely omitted in that important submission even to hint at the idea that waste, corruption or fraud—on which, according to the Chancellor, so much progress is being made—might somehow have an impact on competitiveness.
  We challenge the Government's position on the binding European convention that is being advanced for the protection of the Community's financial interests, to make such matters an offence against Community law. I ask the Paymaster General to tell us whether the Government will support that measure or oppose it. Will they simply rely on the joint action initiative, which I understand would not be binding?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Lest there be any misunderstanding about the wine situation, will the hon. Gentleman strongly advise hon. Members to read the Court of Auditors' report—they may not have read it yet; it became available only today—which shows that expenditure on wine products increased by 45 per cent. between 1992 and 1993?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point. [Interruption.]
  Earlier, someone asked what the Opposition parties were doing in the Chamber. The answer was "morbid curiosity", and I think that what the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has just done to the hon. Member for Wycombe with the Court of Auditors' report provides a very good illustration of what I am talking about.
  Few would disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and others that the CAP cannot be allowed to continue as it is. When the Chancellor was asked about it on a recent edition of the "Today" programme, he said:
  "The Agriculture Ministers"—
  that presumably includes his own Agriculture Minister—
  "do make it too complicated."
  That is one of the things that the Finance Ministers have pointed out.
  We argue that the problem is not just that our Agriculture Minister, along with all the others, has made it too complicated; those Ministers have made it too expensive, too wasteful, and too open to fraud and abuse. That waste adds enormously to the industrial cost of the European Union, as well as to the agricultural cost: we urgently need reform.
  I referred earlier to developments since Edinburgh. They form an important part of our arguments and of our reason for introducing the amendment. I have already referred to the Government's, at best, prevarication over the anti-fraud convention and the missed opportunities on the Delors submission. Something else, however, has changed since Edinburgh: the Government have introduced VAT on domestic fuel.
  1020
  Some hon. Members may be unaware that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel hits Britain twice—it adds not only to fuel costs of British families, but to our net contributions to the European Union, something that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to have missed out from his copious briefings and corrections to hon. Members for the debate.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated dissent.
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but extra charges and extra payments to Europe arise from the imposition of VAT on fuel. Those costs do not arise from the calculation of VAT under the agreement that the Bill will incorporate because the VAT base is already harmonised. They arise because VAT on fuel adds to the calculation of member states' gross national product at market prices. It thereby increases both the fourth resource of funding and the cap on the GNP-related third resource. It is estimated that that will add about £8 million a year to Britain's European contributions, a fair proportion of the extra £75 million that the Chancellor talked about. The Government should now provide what they have so far failed to provide: an exact estimate, which hon. Members might like to take into account when they vote this evening and when they vote on VAT on fuel, which we hope they shall have the opportunity to do soon.
  In reply, the Minister may say that the figure amounts to only a few million pounds. We say that it is a few million pounds that British users of fuels, especially pensioners and disabled people, should not have to pay. They will be furious that they are forced to pay not only VAT on fuel, but, as a consequence, more money to Brussels. It adds insult to injury and people will not forget.
  The Opposition's argument is that the Prime Minister's approach to the Bill is deeply flawed. We say that, if Britain's contributions are to increase, the House has a right to decide on the action that the Government should take to cut out fraud, waste and the excesses of the CAP. We say that, far from being anti-European, action on these matters is essential to build confidence in Europe. Nothing more corrodes public support for the European Union than fraud, waste and excess perpetrated at their expense. Nothing more entrenches narrow, crabbed nationalism, which falsely imagines that isolation from Europe is the best way of winning friends and markets.
  A Europe of budgetary waste and fraud, agricultural excess, political centralisation and itinerant Parliaments will never win public support. A Europe that acts for peace, prosperity, jobs, trade, infrastructure, the environment and human rights, a Europe of person-to-person contact through travel, twinning, sporting and cultural exchanges, a Europe with real political subsidiarity, can win confidence. That is what we must seek—a people's Europe, not a Europe of vested interests.
  The Opposition say, too, that a proud country is able to take a lead and to say yes and no, but it is scornful of the Prime Minister's maybes. There is, however, something even more important than the Prime Minister's reputation, the Government's standing or party advantage in the House this evening. It is the Chamber's responsibility for overseeing, scrutinising and, where necessary, amending

  1021
  legislation. The Prime Minister has called into question the integrity of the House of Commons. Hon. Members will vote on the words of the amendment. They are:
  "this House believes that the European Communities (Finance) Bill is not an acceptable measure as it increases United Kingdom contributions to the European Union without action by Her Majesty's Government to cut fraud and waste in Europe or to reduce expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy."
  A true majority of right hon. and hon. Members agree with those words and I have no doubt that a true majority of people in this country support them. The people are watching and counting and they are paying the price for the fraud, excess and waste that we want stopped.
  I call on right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to carry the will of the people into the Bill tonight. The amendment is right. The British people will be our judge.
  9.34 pm
  The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The House is used to lack of consistency from the Labour party but we just heard from the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) a particularly choice example of trying to oppose something without actually being against it. We all know that Labour wants higher contributions made to the European Union. It has argued for them, requested them, stands for them and would implement them. Nevertheless, Labour has found a way of tabling an amendment that would wreck a Bill to give effect to higher contributions.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), answering an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that he supported the Edinburgh agreement, yet the hon. Gentleman tabled and argued an amendment that would have the effect of blocking a Bill that takes that same agreement into law and would release those contributions.
  To put the matter beyond doubt, the House authorities have confirmed that Labour's amendment is a wrecking amendment. If passed, it would block the Bill. Any thought that Labour can be in favour of the Edinburgh own resources decision yet vote against it is shown to be a sham.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's view is that the House should properly monitor legislation, particularly that affecting finance, and that the Government are not adverse to amendments that allow the House to scrutinise matters more carefully? Could not amendments be tabled and accepted at a later stage?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No amendment to the Bill has that effect. The House must either approve or not approve the own resources decision taken at Edinburgh. Any conditional or half-acceptance would not have the effect of giving approval, and of giving effect, to the decision negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) said that Labour's stance takes to almost absurd lengths the duty to oppose. We have established as point one that Labour will vote against a measure in which it believes and that it wants.
  Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether or not the Government agree with the substance of the amendment that I tabled, which invites the Public
  1022
  Accounts Committee to take a substantial interest in fraud? The answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) suggested that was not the case. Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. Friend the Minister. Will he get that straight?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I strongly believe in this House taking a close interest in mismanagement and fraud in the European Community. Indeed, I have just sent an explanatory memorandum to the Scrutiny Committee about the European Court of Auditors report for 1993. The point that I was making, in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), is that an amendment to the Bill not only would not have such an effect, but would block the Bill's Second Reading and prevent the entering into force of the own resources decision in any form.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way. Let us get this absolutely clear. Is he saying that the Bill must go through unchanged?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to table amendments in Committee. I am saying that the amendment tabled by the official Opposition, if passed this evening, would not have the effect of amending in any way the Bill or the decision. It would block the Bill, which could not then be reintroduced in this Session. That was not understood by the hon. Member for Oxford, East or by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East in his earlier speech.
  Mr. Smith rose—
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have answered the point that the hon. Gentleman made. He made his own speech earlier in the proceedings, which I shall now endeavour to answer.

  I want to take the House back to some of the comments made in the debate, particularly those by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). He made the point that an international agreement entered into by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is something that the Prime Minister is entitled to see passed into law by the House even though it is two years after the Edinburgh Council. The task faced by my right hon. Friend at that Council was, indeed, daunting. The Community was in the depths of a world recession. The single market was not then in place. The Uruguay round of GATT was in the greatest difficulty. Denmark's future in the Community was in doubt, and the prospect of further enlargement to include the Nordic countries and Austria was completely over the horizon. Those and other issues were tackled with great determination by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers.
  Co-ordinated efforts were made to stimulate growth in the Community. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) played a leading part in the growth initiative at that time. I wish to pick up on one point that he made: that the external tariff of the Community was of decreasing importance. I put it to my right hon. Friend that the landing rights at French airports were denied to British Airways not by tariff barriers but by non-tariff barriers. I think that he will agree that: the Spanish market, to which he referred, is by tradition a

  1023
  protectionist market. It takes the force of Community law and the single market to break down those barriers for British exports.
  None of this would have been possible without the settlement of the financial questions faced at Edinburgh. The political way was cleared for a solution to the Danish question. Negotiations were started with the EFTA countries and Austria, and a new commitment was made to free trade and deregulation. What was essential at that negotiation was to clear away the difficult issue of own resources. That had been under discussion in the Community for more than 10 months, and the previous Lisbon Council had failed to resolve it. The Commission wanted a higher figure. It wanted the own resources of the Community to increase to 1.37 per cent., not by 1999 but by 1997. The abatement was also under fire. The abatement negotiated in 1984 at Fontainebleau has netted back to this country some £16 billion. Other member states, naturally, wished to remove it.
  The abatement is under threat not from other member states but from the words and actions of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. Just before the Edinburgh Council, referring to our abatement, he said:
  "There has got to be renegotiation over that."
  The Opposition would have given in on just about everything. Here I agree with the point—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Conversations should be a little less noisy. It is extremely difficult for both sides of the House. I can hear many conversations which should be less noisy.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agreed with the intervention and with the speech made by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) who said clearly that the Opposition parties—the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party—could not be trusted on European matters because they would give in to just about everything. The itch to tax and to spend runs very deep through Opposition Members.
  As we know, in the event, the own resources ceiling was to rise to 1.27 per cent. by 1999. That is less than half the increase proposed by the Commission and supported by the Labour party in the European Parliament. The British abatement is secure. In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), it can be changed only by unanimity in 1999. That will require primary legislation in this House which means that a vote here is required before the abatement is changed, even at that late date.
  The effect of that decision, negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is to increase our net contribution by £75 million next year and by about £250 million in the last year of the century. Of course, the existing decision means that there is growth anyway in the size of the European budget due to growth in the size of the Community's gross national product and the effect of inflation. It is that increase which many people have muddled up with the increase attributable to the Bill. In fact, the yearly increase flowing from the Bill will be considerably less than that under the previous review in 1988.
  1024
  By 1999, the adjustment to the contribution ceiling contained in the Bill will cost each person in this country about 7p a week at today's prices. All Conservative Members agree that all public expenditure needs to be looked after. I ask the House to keep a sense of proportion and to compare that '7p a week at today's prices with, for example, the £28 a week which is everyone's share of the social security budget today.
  A comment has been made by several hon. Members about the abrupt increases in the United Kingdom's contribution that can be seen from one year to the next. By cunning choice of baseline, a steep increase can be seen between specific years. I think that the House now understands that there are technical reasons for that. This country has a financial year that runs from April to March. The Community accounts on a calendar year so it can be easily seen by any hon. Member that a shift in expenditure or contributions within a calendar year can take that expenditure out of one financial year and into another. If one combines that with the effect of the abatement, whereby we get reimbursed a year in arrears, it is plain to see that our contributions fluctuate from year to year. There is, therefore, nothing sinister in the figures put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer early last week.
  I regret the scepticism expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who said that he wanted the true figures. He has the true figures. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is not keeping some secret update from the House—far from it. He actually brought forward by a week, for the convenience of the House, the figures that would normally be published on Budget day.
  Fraud and mismanagement have been mentioned by many hon. Members in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), in his elegant way, referred to the problem of financial management and what he termed the "lack of focus" in some European Community spending. As usual, his comments need to be taken seriously by Ministers. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Conservative and Opposition Members about the lack of adequate financial management in the European Community.
  There is also the linked, but actually separate, issue of fraud. That was raised by, among others, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and I can assure him that the Government take extremely seriously the criticisms and recommendations laid out in the European Court of Auditors report. It is, by definition, extremely difficult to quantify fraud. Some of the wilder estimates given by hon. Members during the debate were, frankly, just guesses. I can assure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) that, contrary to what he said, the European Court of Auditors has not put a figure on prevalence of fraud.
  Having said that, I agree that financial management in the Community is not good enough and fraud is far too prevalent.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On the whole question of fraud, what happens if the measures introduced to deal with fraud after Maastricht do not work? Supposing that, next year and again the year after, the Court of Auditors produces another report of a similar nature. What will the Government then do? Will they take

  1025
  the Community to the wire? Will they pursue a policy of brinkmanship, or will we hear the same old drivel well into the future?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Fraud, like sin, can never be totally eliminated but I can give the House the absolute assurance that we will pursue this issue with renewed vigour. That includes, which I think will be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman, the wider use of administrative penalties. So, where serious shortcomings are identified, we recommend the cutting off of further funds to the areas or projects identified. That was a point raised and a request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) among others.
  Combating fraud is not simply a question of spending more money. It is typically Labour thinking to suppose that the quality of any organisation or initiative is judged simply by the amount of public money spent on it. Yes, we need greater policing of EC expenditure. We also want to see more preventive measures to take away the opportunities for fraud at source.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: On preventive measures, will the Paymaster General answer the question to which no answer was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) earlier? Will the Government, in seeking to prevent a defeat on VAT on fuel, be making that issue a vote of confidence?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is not a subject for today's debate, Madam Speaker, as I am sure that you agree.
  The question of fraud, which is of interest to the House this evening, is a matter that we shall be pursuing partly by the better policing of expenditure and partly, as I also mentioned, by better preventive measures.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Could the Paymaster General simplify this a little for the sake of people at home? Is it not right that we have a very good deal, through the Prime Minister at Edinburgh, and that we are paying very much less than we would have been paying into Europe, which is very important? In fact, it is petty cash in Treasury terms. For it, we are getting inward investment in the United Kingdom, we are getting millions of pounds back out of Europe for environmental reasons and I think that the rebels in this House have not even understood the whole question.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We all welcome my hon. Friend back and the whole House will agree with his intervention.
  My final point about fraud is that we must remove the distortions which give an incentive to fraud. There is a connection in that regard with CAP reform. Many of the frauds in the Community arise because of a disparity between EC prices and world prices. That is why the Government have pressed so hard for CAP reform. The MacSharry reforms, which were agreed in 1992, are a very big step in that direction.
  When Labour was last in office, agriculture consumed more than two thirds of the EC budget. The figure is now about half and it will continue to fall, not because of Opposition criticism but through the determination and practical steps taken by Conservative Governments.
  1026
  In response to points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and others, let me say that the agricultural guideline which sets a limit on agricultural expenditure will be rigidly observed. As it can be increased only by unanimity, I can repeat the assurance to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we will police that guideline absolutely.
  The amendment, with its weasel-worded rejection of the Bill, would achieve none of those things to improve the war on fraud or to reform the CAP.
  Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend tell the House that we are determined to be tough on fraud and tough on the causes of fraud?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can give that assurance to my hon. Friend.
  The amendment would not assist in the smallest degree. The House is aware that the Labour party is the party of public expenditure at home and, since its last U-turn in its attitude to the European Union, it is the party of public expenditure in Europe: public expenditure good; European public expenditure even better.
  The Official Report is littered with requests from Opposition Members asking for, urging and demanding more expenditure. In his previous post as shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said on 24 November 1992:
  "We firmly believe that there should be Europe-wide measures on employment, job creation, investment in transport infrastructure, measures for industrial regeneration and investment."
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East, who replied to the debate on behalf of the Labour party, called for more money before Edinburgh and for even more expenditure afterwards.
  The Liberal Democrats are just the same. As usual, it depends on which audience they are addressing. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said that he wanted
  "a bold, and…generous settlement at Edinburgh".—[Official Report, 24 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 773–85.]
  However, he and his party are apparently supporting an amendment which would wreck the only settlement that is on offer. I hope that the Liberal Democrats have explained to their rural constituents their new-found interest in CAP reform and reduction in agricultural expenditure.
  Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oxford, East said, there has been nothing in the speeches of Opposition Members, before or after Edinburgh, about the need for budgetary discipline and cracking down on fraud. They have never mentioned the European Court of Auditors. We can look in vain for any reference to the problem of fraud or waste in their speeches in 1982 and since, yet now they produce that as a fig leaf to cover their amendment.
  This is a sham amendment put forward by a party with a sham policy on Europe. It is opportunistic, it is inconsistent, and it is wrong. Opposition Members hope that, by betraying their principles, they will bring down the Government and then betray ours. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends: do not fall into a trap so crude. The Bill is about an extra 700ths of 1 per cent. of gross national product at the end of seven years. It is worth

  1027
  more than that to stand firm and fight for the European Community we want and not to sell out to the Opposition parties. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 330.

  Division No. 5]

  [22.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cousins, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cox, Tom

  Aingor, Nfck

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Alton, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dalyell.Tam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davidson, Ian

  Ashton,Joe

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Austin-WaJker, John

  Davies, Ron (Caerpilly)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Bayley.Hugh

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, Rt Hon AJ

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bell, Stuart

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Berry, Roger

  Enright, Derek

  Betts,Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blunkett, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Biikenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Flynn, Paul

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

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Byers, Stephen

  Fraser, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Callaghan.Jim

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Garrett, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  George, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Chidgey, David

  Godsrff, Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  GolWing, Mrs Llin

  Church, Judith

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clapham, Michael

  Graham, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monkands W)

  Griffiths. Win (Bridgend)

  Clelland, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clwyd,MrsAnn

  Gunnell, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Hain, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Hall, Mike

  Connarty, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Harvey, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Corston, Jean

  Henderson, Doug

  1028

  Hendron,Dr Joe

  Meale, Alan

  Heppell,John

  Milchael,Alun

  Hill, Keith (Stratham)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &Bute)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Milburn, Alan

  Hoey.Kate

  Miller, Andrew

  Hogg, Norman (Curnbemauld)

  Mitcnell, Austin (Gt Grinsby)

  Home Robertson, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewte

  Hood, Jimmy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morris, Estalle (B'ham Yandley)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Monis, Rt Hon Alfred (Wynshawe)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Murphy, Paul

  Hume, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hutton, John

  OBrien,Mike(NW'kshire)

  Illsley.Eric

  O'Hara, Edward

  Ingram, Adam

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Olner.Bill

  Jamieson, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Parry, Robert

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Patchett, Terry

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plckthal, Colin

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jewell, Tessa

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Khabra,Piara S

  Radice, Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Redmond, Martin

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Reid, Dr John

  Lewis, Terry

  Rendel, David

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretfoud)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd,Elfyn

  Rooker, Jeff

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rooney, Terry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Salmond, Alex

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maddock, Diana

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon.Alice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mallon, Seamus

  Short, Clare

  Mandelson, Peter

  Simpson, Alan

  Marek,Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Smith, Chris (lel'ton S & F'sbury)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxtor, John

  Soley.Clive

  McAllion, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spellar, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McFall, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McGrady, Eddie

  Stevenson, George

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Sufcliffe, Gerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  1029

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Timms, Stephen

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

  Turner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Wise, Audrey

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wray, Jimmy

  Worthington, Tony

  Wallace, James

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Walley, Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, Mike

  Mr. Ray Powell and

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. Gordon McMaster.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Colvin, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Congdon, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Conway, Derek

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Couchman, James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cran, James

  Ashby, David

  Critchley, Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

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

  Atkins, Robert

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Day, Stephen

  Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Baldry, Tony

  Devlin, Tim

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Beggs, Roy

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dunn, Bob

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  Booth, Hartley

  Elletson, Harold

  Boswell, Tim

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evennett, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Faber, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bright Sir Graham

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Forman, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Burns, Simon

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forth, Eric

  Butcher, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butler, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  French, Douglas

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Cash, William

  Gallie, Phil

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Churchill, Mr

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Clappison, James

  Garnier, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  1030

  Gorst, Sir John

  Maginnis, Ken

  Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Malone, Gerald

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mans, Keith

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hague, William

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mates, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Harris, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Merchant Piers

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mills, Iain

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Heald, Oliver

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hendry, Charles

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Robert

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hill. James (Southampton Test)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Horam, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

  Norris, Steve

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hughes, Robert (Harrow West)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Paice, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Pawsey, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jessel,Toby

  Pickles, Eric

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rathbone, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Richards, Rod

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Knapman, Roger

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

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

  Robathan, Andrew

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knox, Sir David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Lamont Rt Hon Norman

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sackville, Tom

  Legg, Barry

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lidington, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  Skeet Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Maclean, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Madel, Sir David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  1031

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Trimble, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Trotter, Neville

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spring, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sproat lain

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stephen, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stern, Michael

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Streeter, Gary

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sumberg, David

  Watts, John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wells, Bowen

  Sykes, John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Taylor, John M(Solihull)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Willetts, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wolfson,Mark

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thumham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Tracey, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Sydney Chapman

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 44

  Division No.6]

  [22.17 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Alexander, Richard

  Bowis, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Michael

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Ct'thorpes)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, Ian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Burns, Simon

  Atkins, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Butcher, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butler, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K (Mole Valley)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Baldry, Tony

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cash, William

  Bates, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Churchill, Mr

  Beggs, Roy

  Clappison, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Congdon, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  1032

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cran, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'them)

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

  Horam, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dunn, Bob

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Elletson, Harold

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evernnett, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Faber, David

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

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knox, Sir David

  Fishbum, Dudley

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forth, Eric

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Legg, Barry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  French, Douglas

  Lidington, David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gate, Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Lord, Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Luff, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  MacKay, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maclean, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Madel, Sir David

  Gorst, Sir John

  Maginnis, Ken

  Grant, Sir A (Cambs SM)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Malone, Gerald

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mans, Keith

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hague, William

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mates, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hannam, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Harris, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Merchant, Piers

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mills, Iain

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mitchell, Sir David (Harts NW)

  Heald, Oliver

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mono, Sir Hector

  Hendry, Charles

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  1033

  Moss, Malcolm

  Spring, Richard

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Nelson, Anthony

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stem, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Allan

  Norris, Steve

  Streeter, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sumberg, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sweeney, Walter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thomason, Roy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thomton, Sir Malcolm

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thumham, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Trimble, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trotter, Neville

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wakdegrave, Rt Hon William

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waldern, George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Waller, Gary

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Ward John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sackville, Tom

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Watts, John

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw David (Dover)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitney, Ray

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Willetts, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Soames, Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Spicer, Mchael (S Worcs)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Gerrard, Neil

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Barnes, Harry

  Hall, Mike

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Canavan, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cann, Jamie

  Madden, Max

  Clelland, David

  Mahon, Alice

  Cohen, Harry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McCrea, Rev William

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McWillam, John

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Olner, Bill

  1034

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Parry, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Wise, Audrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Simpson, Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody

  Smith, Llew

  and Mr. Austin Mitchell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  Committee tomorrow.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (FINANCE) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the European Communities (Finance) Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund, or payable out of money provided by Parliament, under the European Communities Act 1972; and

  (2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Budget of the European Communities for 1995
[Relevant document: European Community Document No. SEC(94)1479, the Commission's Letter of Amendment No. 1 to the Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Communities for 1995.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. COM(94)400, the Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Communities for 1995; 8782/94, the Draft General Budget of the European Communities for 1995; the proposals contained in the unnumbered document: European Parliament Minutes for the Sitting of 27th October 1994 relating to the Draft General Budget for the European Union for the Financial Year 1995; the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 23rd November, relating to the Council's decisions on the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft General Budget for 1995; and European Community Document No. 9943/94, relating to the adjustment of the Financial Perspective with a view to enlargement; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
10.32 pm
Ms Hilary Armstrong: I expected to be speaking after hearing what the Minister had to say about the budget. He was supposed to be going to tell us why—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that this is business No. 3, the Budget of the European Communities for 1995, and that the Government have not moved that with a speech but have moved it formally, for a speech later? Is that the position, please?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is what I had assumed. I thought that it was fairly obvious.
Ms Armstrong: The Minister may have nothing to say, but we have some questions to ask him. This is a very important piece of information to come before the House. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who want to continue their conversations please leave the Chamber?
Ms Armstrong: It seems that Ministers are too reliant on civil servants nowadays, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps some time in opposition would be helpful, allowing them to learn to prepare their own speeches.
The debate gives us an opportunity to comment on the drawing up of the 1995 European budget before the European Parliament finalises its deliberations next month. I shall excuse the wrong date that we are given in the explanatory memorandum: I understand that the Council meeting took place on 16 November, not 15 November—but, today and on previous occasions, we have become somewhat used to the mistakes in figures that the Chancellor is wont to make, and we shall forgive him.
At present there is clearly a disagreement between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers about important parts of the budget, but I intend to focus on the role of the Chancellor at the Council of Ministers meeting. First, I should like to know—particularly in view of the Government's rhetoric today—why the Council of Ministers rejected every amendment made to the budget by the European Parliament to tighten control of fraud. In
1036
all five categories, the European Parliament tabled amendments transferring financial commitments to the area of tackling fraud; it suggested not using new money for that purpose but moving, within budget headings, money that had largely been allocated to administration.
In the explanatory memorandum, the Minister gives no explanation whatever; indeed, he barely alludes to those issues. I think that, particularly in view of the rhetoric that we heard from the Minister in our earlier debate—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you noticed what is happening? Have you observed that the Minister has just been given his speech—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I notice everything that goes on in the Chamber.
Ms Armstrong: I have some sympathy for the Minister: earlier, he had to speak while hon. Members behind him were fighting, and he has now had to get people to bring him the appropriate papers. It is a hard life being a Minister in the Tory Government.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster): You were not elected.
Ms Armstrong: I was indeed elected.
Along with most other people in the country, I want to know what the Chancellor did at the meeting of Finance Ministers on 15 November in relation to the amendments dealing with tackling fraud. What was his view? If I were generous, I would assume that he fought tooth and nail to support amendments to crack down on fraud. However, in the explanatory memorandum we are given no hint of the Government's view or of why the Council made the decisions that it made.
To date, the Government have not exactly been shrinking violets in their stance on majority voting or, indeed, on the social chapter. Why have they not made a similar fuss about measures to tackle fraud levels which, as we have heard, are costing us £4.5 billion, which in agriculture alone rose by 50 per cent. between 1990 and 1993 and which are set to rise by a further 30 per cent. in 1994? Perhaps the Minister will tell us what action the Chancellor took at the Council of Ministers with regard to those amendments on fraud. Did he ignore them? Did he believe them to be frivolous? Did he argue for them and for the citizens of Britain? We cannot know, but we expect some answers from the Minister when he has had time to read his papers.
What action did the Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer take to prevent the Council of Ministers' decision to increase expenditure on the common agricultural policy by 545 million ecu while slashing support on overseas food aid by 65 million ecu? Do the Government believe that aid to multinational agribusiness companies should take priority over support to people dying of starvation through natural and man-made disasters?
What action did the Chancellor take to prevent the Council of Ministers from trying to increase expenditure on the CAP over and above that recommended by the European Parliament? What action did he take over the Council's suggestion, with which he apparently agreed, to cut support for the Northern Ireland peace process and its aftermath by 30 million ecu? What justification can he give for that action?

1037
What action did the Chancellor take to prevent the Council of Ministers' decision to increase expenditure on the CAP while slashing support for internal policies, including constructive initiatives relating to the environment and to consumers? It appears that, in every way, consumers and the citizens of Britain have been hit by budget decisions in which the Chancellor at least participated. We need to know what view he took on those decisions at the meeting.
The opportunity to discuss the European budget during the budget-making process is welcome, but it is clear that not having information about what takes place at Council of Ministers meetings puts hon. Members at a disadvantage. We know what the European Parliament thought and why it took its decisions, but we cannot find out the answers to other questions, except through the explanatory memorandum. As I have already made clear, that memorandum far from explains the Council of Ministers' actions at the meeting and it is our only clue to how the Council voted or how it reached a view on the European Parliament's proposals.
How can we know whether to congratulate or to criticise the Chancellor on the position that he has taken? We have no clue as to what Ministers say, how they vote, what they support and what they oppose at the meetings. We do know what priorities the European budget should have. It is not acceptable that the CAP costs the average family in Britain £20 per week. It is not acceptable that the CAP budget has risen from £6.4 billion in 1979 to £30.4 billion in 1994. It is not acceptable that fraud is costing all of us up to £4.5 billion.
We also note that there is no mention in the memorandum of the fact that the budget headings, particularly those dealing with administration, will include spending on the implementation of the social chapter. We know that, under objective 4 of the social fund, there is to be spending on, for example, skill training to retrain workers. We also know that the Secretary of State for Employment does not intend to claim any money from that for British workers. That is another example of the ideological bigotry of denying opportunity to British people. This country is contributing to the social chapter and the British people want to enjoy its benefits. Half of the top 100 companies are committed to implementing aspects of the social chapter; yet despite the rhetoric that we heard today, the Government are unable to paper over even the thinnest cracks in their party.
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Lady referred to papering over the cracks. When Labour MEPs voted for double the increase in the future European budget that my right hon. and hon. Friends proposed to the House today, did they make it conditional on the terms of Labour's amendment tonight?
Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman has not been listening. Labour MEPs have proposed amendment after amendment to the 1995 budget.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)indicated dissent.
Ms Armstrong: The Minister has obviously been enjoying himself before coming to the Chamber.
Labour MEPs proposed amendment after amendment to cut fraud and to introduce measures to tackle it. Those amendments were removed by the Council of Ministers.
1038
Our manifesto for this year's European elections said that ending the present common agricultural policy should be a priority in the next round of treaty reforms, so that the Union will be for all its people, not just for wealthy farmers.
The budget should be spent efficiently to stimulate the creation of quality skilled jobs, to improve skills qualifications, to invest in the trans-European communications network and to fund research and environmental projects.
It was clear today that the Government are so concerned with their own internal problems that they have failed to tackle fraud in preparing for next year's budget. At best, they have colluded with the rise in the cost of the CAP, when there was an opportunity at least to trim. There are important questions surrounding the 1995 budget—I hope that the Minister has some answers.
10.47 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I rise to make the speech that I had hoped to contribute to the previous debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer some of my points, but I shall fully understand if he cannot do so.
Having just supported the Government, I want to make one or two remarks about the European Communities (Finance) Bill. Some misleading claims about the nature of the Bill were bandied about. It was said that it was presented as a Finance Bill, but I question that. A domestic Finance Bill puts all the proposed taxation and revenue-raising measures before Parliament, which then decides whether to approve them; if not, the Government do not have the money at their disposal to make any expenditure.
The problem with the European Communities (Finance) Bill is that not a great deal changes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating not the European Communities (Finance) Bill but a motion. If the hon. Gentleman does not stick to that subject, I will rule him out of order.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am grateful to you, Mr. DeputySpeaker. I was coming on to the way in which we scrutinise European budgets and was trying to use the European Communities (Finance) Bill as an example of how, in many ways, that is never achieved and to give some of the reasons why. I was using that Bill as a particular example. With your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to raise one or two points on that matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not try to debate the Bill. The Bill has been debated throughout the day. It is over and done with. We are now debating a motion, and the hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the motion.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Indeed. I was using one or two areas of the Bill only to illustrate the problems that will exist for us in future debates on European budgets. I believe that 1995 is specified, but others will be presented before us. I should like, if possible, to continue using the Bill as an illustration of where the problems will arise and hope that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General can take

1039
from that some of the main areas and problems that he would like to look at in relation to the other budgets that come before us.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to tell me that he wants to make the speech that he would have liked to make in the main debate on Second Reading this afternoon. He cannot possibly do that. His remarks must be on the motion, otherwise he will be out of order.
Mr. Duncan Smith: In that case, I am guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will finish at this point.
10.51 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) has sat down, because I always find his speeches most entertaining, even if sometimes I do not agree with them. By and large, I think that the people with whom one does not agree are far more entertaining than those with whom one agrees.
Today has not been a great day for Parliament and I do not think that it will end any better in this debate, which is narrower than the European Communities (Finance) Bill, which we have just given a Second Reading. Although the Bill was related to the European budget, the debate ended up not as a rational debate but more like an elaborate game of charades.
In discussing, however briefly, the budget of the Union, one of the basic things that we must recognise is that there are within the House a small but extremely dedicated group of people—in the Conservative party, but also in the Labour party—who are opposed root and branch to everything to do with the Union. Some hon. Members are circling around rather like carrion crows waiting for an appropriate piece of meat on which to alight. I thought that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) was rather like that today. He is the former Chancellor, the man who took part in the Council meetings of Finance Ministers that determined the budget. Until recently, he was our representative there.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames made a speech, which I can describe only as entirely in the mainstream of old-fashioned English nationalism. He rejected the idea of the regional fund. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) remarked, rightly, that the two structural funds—the regional fund and the social fund—are exceedingly important elements in the budget. Liberal Democrat Members and, I know, Front-Bench Labour Members support those funds most strongly, yet the former Chancellor said that he saw no sense in recognising additionality.
Indeed, as far as I could see, the former Chancellor was wholly opposed to the idea of regional expenditure, although, as we know, the budget is used in that area and the Commission presses for that to correct disadvantages in different parts of the Community. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, the man who until recently was the spokesman of our Government, was clearly and absolutely opposed to any such proposition.
One of the things that I found most extraordinary about the right hon. Gentleman's contribution in that regard, considering his recent responsibilities, was the idea that
1040
there was an absolute intrinsic incompatibility between us and everybody else in the Community. "All our partners," he said—the Germans, the Dutch, everybody. I do not think that that is true at all. It is terribly dangerous thinking. Speaking as a Scotsman, I think that the Scots are more different from the English than the English are from the Germans. The House should just think about that, because it undermines completely the false argument that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames advanced.
In the previous debate, to which I shall refer only briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we had repeated speeches from the Euro-sceptic area opposing the use of the European budget to improve the balance of wealth and poverty and to improve opportunity in the Community through the cohesion fund and the structural funds. Like the founding fathers and like those who wrote the visionary document that established the regional fund, the Liberal Democrats believe that the budget should be seen as a means not only of running the administration of the Community but of making an actual change to the benefit of the weaker members of the Community.
I support what the hon. Member for Durham, North-West said about the surprising view that was taken by the Council of Ministers in respect of the propositions made by the European Parliament about fraud. As Ministers have been most anxious today to proclaim how zealous they are about fraud, there seems to be a contradiction.
My next point concerns the British clawback which we had following Fontainebleau and the agreement achieved by Lady Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. I do not think that we can expect that to go on for ever. We all know why it was perfectly right that we should get money back; the effect of the common agricultural policy was different for us. There is, however, no sense in pursuing that as a long-term effort. It would be far better if the British Government went into budget negotiations talking about a need to reform the basis of revenue within the Community so that it is more equitable throughout the whole Community than it now is. We should, therefore, be as interested in unfairnesses that happen to other countries as we are in the difficulties that we face.
All day, we have been hearing people say, "We must reform the common agricultural policy. It costs far too much." We did not hear a single word about how that was to be done, not even from Labour spokesmen during the previous debate. We must face the fact that it is not an easy matter. It is certainly impossible to reform the common agricultural policy quickly. The Paymaster General was fair to say earlier that expenditure on the CAP has dropped quite dramatically and that although the reforms that have been instituted are slow, they are beginning to have an effect. People who claim that, somehow or other, one can wave a magic wand and reform the common agricultural policy, just like that, are living in cloud cuckoo land. Political pressures make it impossible. The complications of social and rural support, which feed through the CAP, make it impossible. We all agree that we should move towards reform, but it is wrong for any speaker to suggest that there is some quick fix which will take us out of the situation. There is not.
10.58 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I understand that it is Labour party policy to reform the common agricultural policy, although the party has not put a date on it.
I do not want to give now the speech that I was unable to give in the previous debate, because that would be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though I might have brought the Government to their knees if I had been able to give it in the previous debate. I must say, however, that all the pressure, all the arm-twisting, all the panic, all the exaggeration and all the ability that the Government have, in their usual fashion, to turn a difficulty into a disaster, misapplied in the previous debate, have brought us to this mish-mash of rubbish and rhubarb in the relevant documents.
The Minister cannot even be bothered to give us an opening speech to justify, to defend or to explain. It is disgraceful that, after all that went before, when we come to the detailed application of the money to which the Government have just been coercing the House to agree, they cannot be bothered to explain where it is going. The Minister had to have his speech drafted for him during this debate by civil servants in the Box, have it ferried over so that he could skim through it—as he is doing—and learn it off by heart so that he could give us some shambles of an explanation at the end of the debate. It is a disgraceful performance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) on the Opposition Front Bench coped brilliantly, but she should never have been put in that position. The House should not have been put in that position by the Minister's inconsiderate approach to this matter.
Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge, as a veteran in these matters, that his hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) did not portray total familiarity with the procedures relating to the budget, when she consistently referred to the Chancellor. Those of us like the hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that another Minister takes the Budget Council.
Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman does a competent job defending the incompetence of his own Front-Bench spokesmen. However, the Minister was there to give us an explanation. He did not and, in failing to do so, he did not give my hon. Friend any of the material that a Front-Bench speaker normally expects to be able to bite on, rebut and reply to during his or her speech. That is a failure. There is no point in excusing it. A different Minister may be concerned, but the Paymaster General is on the Government Front Bench at the moment and that is all that we can go by.
It is very difficult to follow a budget on this scale, especially when the explanations given by the Government are so slipshod as to get the wrong date for the Council of Ministers. It is also difficult because so much of what we are asked to follow is hypothetical. The European Parliament has not yet deliberated on the matter. We do not know what it will include in the course of its
1042
deliberations. I notice that in the Government's explanatory memorandum on the budget on 14 November, they tell us:
"The Government notes that the European Parliament has proposed the creation of a Chapter to deal with expenditure under the second pillar (Common Foreign and Security Policy) which might be funded from the Community budget."
Here is potentially enormous expenditure, which we are asked to note that the European Parliament may well include when it comes to its deliberations in December. It is an enormous issue and we are just given this casual explanation:
"The Government considers that this prejudges the results of negotiations with the European Parliament on the budgetary mechanisms for those actions under the Second Pillar which are to be funded from the Community budget. The Government will therefore seek to ensure that the Council returns at its second reading to the budgetary structure contained in its Draft Budget."
In other words, there is a huge hypothetical area, in which the Government are arguing on one side, the European Parliament is arguing on the other and we are asked to debate it today on the basis of total ignorance and this pathetic explanation.
Another difference is emerging on the expenditures that have been frozen at the VAT rate of 1.21 per cent., over 1.2 per cent., by the European Parliament which can be put back by the Parliament at a later stage. What is the size of those items which are to be put back? What will be produced by the advent of newcomers—probably three, possibly four? Again, there was no explanation and no allowance' made in the budget, although the European Parliament wanted to put it in. The Council of Ministers refused to give it the ability to do so.
Again, something that will affect the scale of expenditure and the scale of everybody else's contributions is left there hanging, a great open question still to be decided. That is an incredible way in which to formulate a budget. How can we in this House, having witnessed the drama and arm-squeezing which went before, be asked now to discuss intelligently—which the Government would presumably like us to do—a budget that has great gaping holes and hypothetical aspects to it? Indeed, the expenditure limit of 1.2 per cent., I note from the budget documents, is not to be exceeded. The limit is to be reached at 1.1999 per cent. recurring. The calculations are so precise that the figure can be set at 1.1999 per cent. recurring. That figure is totally hypothetical, and that is the usual method of fiddling accounts in the Community.
The limits are always exceeded in practice and there is then an elaborate procedure of accountancy devices—which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) could explain for us if he were to bring his accountancy ability to bear on the budget—so the Commission and the Council can fiddle the figures through, through various loopholes. This is not a budget; it is a "bludget". The Government will be bludging all next year to turn the documents into something that amounts to sense.
I object to the basis on which the budget figures have been prepared. There is an elaborate system, of bribing countries, particularly the three Mediterranean states of Greece, Spain and Portugal, and Ireland, with our money to accede to strengthening the process of union at our expense. The cliffhanger over the own resources decision with Italy and Spain is typical of the process.

1043
When the Minister replies to the debate in an informed fashion—now that he has written his speech and given it some coherence that it did not have at the start of the debate—I hope that he will explain the effect of that blackmail in respect of the own resources decision. Italy and Spain have been allowed to get away with a reduced payback after the fiddle on the milk quotas. After starting off all bluster and saying that the money had to be paid back in full, the Chancellor of the Exchequer climbed down and agreed that it did not have to be paid back in full. He said that that was more efficient than proceeding through the European Court of Justice to prosecute those countries.
Have those paybacks been made? Has the money been paid over by Italy and Spain to the Community? What is the effect of that recoupment on the budget? Where does it feature? How can we trace what has happened to that money? The issue sets a most undesirable precedent of blackmail by refusing to agree to budget provisions, in this case to the own resources decision, unless concessions are made for derelictions in other areas. That is the undesirable principle of blackmail on which the decision was based.
I am amazed that a Government who are so strict and stringent about public expenditure that they are hounding single-parent families and social security beneficiaries, and are cutting Government expenditure in every way possible, are so lax when it comes to major items amounting to millions of pounds in respect of the basis on which the budget is drawn up.
I cannot see how the Chancellor could give us the exact estimates, which he set out in the letter that he sent to all hon. Members, of exactly what the Edinburgh agreement was going to mean in terms of extra contributions by Britain based on the hypothetical figures in the budget. We do not know how many states will be contributing to it or what the basis of the contributions will be. We do not know what qualifications the European Parliament is going to make, but the Chancellor can purport to give us an exact figure for our contribution. It is impossible for that figure to be given.
The fourth paragraph of the explanatory and financial memorandum on the European Communities (Finance) Bill states:
"The new Decision also provides for the continuation of the abatement mechanism whereby the United Kingdom benefits from a correction in respect of budgetary imbalances."
Why should such a provision by included in the Bill? I thought that this correction mechanism and abatement procedure could be withdrawn only on the principle of unanimity in the Council. We are certainly not going to agree to its being withdrawn. Why does it have to be there, specified in that fashion?
The next matter is the nature of the GNP contribution, which, as I understand it, is a fallback position if the own resources contribution is not adequate to cover the budget expenditures. The GNP-raised contribution is specified in the European Communities (Finance) Bill. Perhaps the Minister will explain how that emerges in the budget documents. It is a variable. It rises and falls with the own resources contribution. Is it going to rise, or is it going to fall? If it rises, presumably it will benefit us as a country with one of the lower GNPs. How is that mechanism provided for in the budget documents?
1044
The Minister, having prepared his speech, should be prepared to answer those questions. We need his guidance on them, given the size of the pile of documents and the hypothetical nature of the budget that we are asked to discuss. I should very much appreciate his guidance, particularly on those two matters.
11.10 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I intervene briefly to question the procedure that is being used this evening. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members have considered the 23rd report from the Select Committee on European Legislation, but the House would do well to dwell on paragraph 1.8, which states:
"The budget clearly raises matters of political importance and, as in previous years, we recommend further consideration on the Floor of the House, rather than in European Standing Committee B. We trust that this year the debate will be arranged to allow the House to examine the budget properly and not, as was the case in 1993, by means of a late debate on a grossly overloaded Motion."
I do not regard that as scrutiny. I cannot believe that any Member of the House of Commons could suggest that what is happening in this debate is detailed scrutiny of those important budget papers. I regret that the Committee took the decision to refer the matter to the Floor of the House. It was in error. It has denied the House the opportunity of scrutinising the matter in Committee. May I explain why.
We are dealing with budgetary headings. The Minister knows that that is the soft option for Ministers. The scrutiny in a Scrutiny Committee or in European Standing Committee A or B is such that Ministers can be constantly pressed on the detail of documents placed before those Committees. In many ways, reputations are made by Ministers in those Committees, which, I understand, are described by Ministers as the most difficult proceedings of the House of Commons to handle because they require extraordinary knowledge of a subject. Clearly, Ministers do not wish to be caught out by Opposition or Conservative Back Benchers.
What we have tonight is second-best procedure and no scrutiny. We have now spent several hours debating this aspect of the legislation, with its implications for the budget, recognising that the public expect us to consider such matters in far greater detail.
As someone who has supported the Community all my adult life, certainly since the age of 14, I have been an impassioned supporter of the Community, which is now the Union. For the first time in my life, having spent all those years arguing, I desperately wanted to vote the way I did this evening because of budgetary considerations, not because of its being a motion of confidence, but because those who support the Community must realise that, unless we sort out problems now, if we are confronted by a referendum in years to come, we will lose on the referendum. The British public will make up their minds on the basis of whether the Community's problems of fraud have been dealt with.
It is only by adopting the right procedure in considering budgets that Ministers can go to Council of Ministers meetings, reinforced and armed with the facts, to argue the reservations expressed in the British House of Commons. By adopting this procedure tonight, first, we undermine even further the prospect of that greater union that many of us support; and, secondly, we undermine the credibility of this place.
11.14 pm
The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The motion in this important scrutiny debate is, inevitably, rather long because it refers to many papers which are already available to the House. The budgetary process is extremely complex: we move from a preliminary draft Budget early in the year, to a draft Budget which is then amended and which, in time, receives a first reading and then a second reading.
That process is by no means complete. The budgetary Council, which I attended recently, amended the European Parliament's budget. Those amendments have now gone back to the European Parliament and a final resolution of the 1995 budget is expected on or about 15 December.
The budget authority for the European Union is the Council and the European Parliament. Generally, the Council of Ministers has the final say over the obligatory side of the budget, which is chiefly agricultural expenditure; whereas, for many years, the European Parliament has had the final word on non-obligatory expenditure. That has become more important over the years as the proportion of the budget taken by agricultural expenditure has dropped from well over two thirds to its present level of about half.
Throughout that long process, the Government have kept the House of Commons informed through a series of explanatory memorandums. I pay tribute to the Committee responsible for scrutiny for the forbearance with which it received and digested these inevitably complex documents and, where necessary, made them available for debate in the House.
The point is well made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that it is difficult to address these complex matters in the Chamber with the requisite degree of detail. That is why we rely on the Committees which sit outside the Chamber to do a great deal of the detailed work.
Throughout the budgetary process, the Government aim to ensure that budgetary discipline is maintained within the limits of the financial perspective and also, perhaps more importantly, the existing own resources ceiling. The House debated the own resources ceiling and the change to it, consequential on the decision of the Edinburgh Council, earlier this evening.
We believe that the Community budget should be subject to exactly the same restraints as the national budget of each member state. The Government believe that the Council's second reading draft budget is acceptable. Under it, commitments will increase by 3.4 per cent. on 1994 and payments will increase by 2.8 per cent. That implies real growth of about 0.5 per cent.
The Council was right to reject the European Parliament's approach to enlargement and the new anticipated own resources decision. The European Parliament was anxious to take account in advance of the Edinburgh decision—the 1.21 per cent. of contributions—even before national Parliaments had,approved them. That would have been resented certainly by the House and by the Parliaments of other member states.
We believe that when approval is complete in each member state, but not before then, it will be appropriate to move to the 1.21 per cent. ceiling. The Council of Ministers was adamant in bringing forward the 1975 budget on the basis of the existing own resources decision.
1046

We all hope that the Union will enlarge on 1 January next year to include Austria, Sweden, Finland and, we hope, Norway, although the referendum this evening may point otherwise. We do not yet know. Again, we think that it is wrong to anticipate the extra resources that would be brought in by the new member states. If and when some or all the states join on time, amended budgets will be required.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), who leads for the Opposition, raised the issue of agricultural expenditure. The Government are certain that the agricultural guideline must not be exceeded. To remind the House, it is a feature of the existing budgetary arrangement that expenditure on agriculture cannot rise by more than 74 per cent. of the growth in Community gross national product. Therefore, the proportion of the budget contributed to agriculture falls through time. That is a very effective discipline.
Naturally, some member states and some interest groups within member states would like that guideline to be exceeded. When the 1994 budget was discussed, there was evidence that the guideline was being breached. However, I am happy to report to the House that it is likely that there will be an underspend on agriculture in the current year.
I am aware of comments made in this debate and the earlier one about agriculture and common agricultural policy reform in general. I can only repeat that no Government have worked harder or more consistently for sensible reform of the CAP than the present one. The MacSharry reforms, which were agreed in 1992, will gradually reduce the level of producer prices. That will bring relief to consumers throughout the European Union. The reforms will also reduce the problem of surpluses and gradually narrow the gap between Community agricultural prices and world prices. Indeed, the gap has already narrowed substantially for commodities such as wheat.
Ms Armstrong: I wonder if the Minister will help us by explaining why, when the Council agreed to spend to the guaranteed level in agriculture, the Parliament felt that it was possible to budget for an underspend lower than the level to which he referred, but the Council said no and wanted spending to go right up to the level?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I have explained, the position of the Government is that agricultural budgetary expenditure should be set at the guideline. A great many interest groups, particularly in other member states, believe that that is an almost ferocious discipline which is likely to be exceeded. We say that expenditure must be accommodated within revenue and that revenue cannot accommodate all expenditure.
It is perfectly true—I think that this is the point to which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West alludes—that the European Parliament consistently tries to bring down agricultural expenditure, over which it does not have final control, not, I am afraid, to save money for the taxpayers of the European Union, but to spend any money saved from the budget 6n its own projects on the non-obligatory side of the EC budget—items such as internal expenditure, aid, research and development and other categories.

1047
Other hon. Members mentioned fraud. I do not need to repeat how seriously the Government take that issue and the more general one of the need for financial discipline and an end to the all too prevalent financial mismanagement of some sectors of the budget.
That is achieved only in part by spending more money on anti-fraud activities. The right response to a problem is not always spending money on it. It would be best to build better preventive measures against fraud into the structures of the Community—clearer legislation, more transparent regulations and pre-expenditure checks. We have already ensured that the new regulations governing structural and cohesion fund expenditure contain requirements for value for money and better monitoring and scrutiny.
In answer to the question whether the United Kingdom takes up money available for anti-fraud activities, yes we do, but not simply because the money is available. We do so only where we believe that there is demonstrably added value. It would not be sensible to take already well-trained customs officials off duty simply to put them through a Euro-training course because the money is available, especially as that might take money that could be better spent in some of the other member states, where larger amounts of fraud have been discovered.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned milk quotas and the court case that Britain launched against the Commission over its proposed relief for Italy and Spain because of over-production of milk in earlier years. Only the British Government launched that case. Others may talk about budgetary discipline, but the British Government act. We were alone in launching that case and I am glad to remind the House—my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already argued this strongly today—that the case was settled on our terms. The Governments of Italy, Spain and, to a lesser extent, Greece will have to pay back a £2.5 billion fine.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby also mentioned the abatement. It is true that we take extremely seriously any threat to the British abatement, which has clawed back about £16 billion since it was negotiated by Lady Thatcher at Fontainebleau. Although the Labour party may have huffed and puffed before then about the need for an abatement, when Labour was last in office it did not get back one penny piece by way of rebate from the European Community. It took the advent of a Conservative Government in 1979 to start getting rebates. That was regularised at Fontainebleau in 1984. Others may talk about rebates; we delivered one.
In answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, 1999 is a significant date only because the existing new own resources decision, which the House debated earlier, runs from 1992 to 1999. At that point, there will be an entire renegotiation of the own resources decision, just as there was at Edinburgh in 1992.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the reality of the abatement that because of its existence, Britain effectively has a back seat in dealing credibly with the fraud in the European Community? Although we want and need the money, is not the truth that if we did not have the abatement our whole attitude to European finances would be very different? We would be very much in the front
1048
lines, and we may well have driven through much-needed reforms and made the Community a far more credible place than it is today.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I need no such incentive to pursue the matters of fraud and mismanagement. Even with the British abatement, we are substantial net contributors to the European budget, as the House well knows.
The hon. Gentleman makes one good point, which is that the fact of a member state becoming a net contributor has a dramatic effect on its attitude to the European budget. That is why a very important feature of the recent own resources decision, which was debated earlier today, is that we are now being joined as net contributors by many other member states. Of course, Germany is by far and away the largest net contributor, and the gap between Germany and other member states will widen in the remaining years of this century. But in addition to the UK, the French are now very substantial regular net contributors. In terms of contributions per head of population, we have been overtaken by the Netherlands, and when Sweden and Austria join, they, too, will be contributing more per head than we are.
Italy is a most interesting case. It is now a net contributor and that has had a startling effect on the attitude of Italian Ministers regarding the whole question of financial discipline and the need for it in the Council of Ministers. We are now being joined by many other member states which share our preoccupations with the need for financial restraint and for a crackdown on fraud.
The final point that I must make to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is that although all the matters will be renegotiated in 1999 just as they were in 1992, we cannot have the British abatement removed from us except by unanimity. Just as this Bill, which sets the new own resources figure for 1992 to 1999, was brought before the House by primary legislation, so it will be that in 1999 another Bill will be brought before the House. Effectively, it is not only the Government who have a veto over any change to the British abatement, but the House of Commons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that.
Finally, I turn to the advent of other member states and whether they will upset or alter the budget for 1995. I can confirm to the House that the figures in the explanatory memorandum are based on a Community of 12. If, as we hope, the Community enlarges next year, additional resources will be available. During discussions on the European Union (Accessions) Bill, I stated that there would be a net benefit to the UK from the resources brought into the Community by those states, and I remember mentioning a figure of some £300 million. The figures that we have at the moment are the most pessimistic available. If enlargement takes place, they could marginally improve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. COM(94)400, the Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Communities for 1995; 8782/94, the Draft General Budget of the European Communities for 1995; the proposals contained in the unnumbered document: European Parliament Minutes for the Sitting of 27th October 1994 relating to the Draft General Budget for the European Union for the Financial Year 1995; the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 23rd November, relating to the Council's decisions on the European

1049
Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft General Budget for 1995; and European Community Document No. 9943/94, relating to the adjustment of the Financial Perspective with a view to enlargement; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline.

CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.— [Mr. Burns.]
Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order H(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet:

1. in Edinburgh on Monday 5th December at half-past Ten o'clock, proceedings being interrupted at Two o'clock;

2. on Tuesday 13th December at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee; and

3. in Glasgow on Monday 19th December at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

ENVIRONMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Ainsworth be discharged from the Environment Committee and Mr. Michael Stephen be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Spring be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Tim Smith be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HEALTH
Ordered,
That Mr. Jonathan Evans be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. Robert Key be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Jonathan Evans be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Sir Wyn Roberts be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Eric Clarke be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. David Marshall be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
Ordered,
That Mr. A J Beith be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and Mr. Malcolm Bruce be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Ordered,
That Mr. Malcolm Bruce be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. Nick Harvey be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I wish to present a petition from a further 450 of my constituents, in addition to the 2,200 signatures that I have already submitted, and to add to the 300,000 signatures that have been collected nationally in opposition to the increase of VAT on domestic fuel and power.
  The petition reads:
  The Petition of the constituents of Nottingham, South declares that the decision to increase VAT on domestic fuel and power from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. in April 1995 breaks election promises and is unfair, hitting those who can least afford it.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to stop the increase on VAT on domestic fuel and power going ahead.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, in addition to a number of petitions that have been submitted recently and the many cards that have been received condemning the Government's proposal to increase VAT on domestic fuel.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of citizens of the United Kingdom declares that the Government's decision to increase VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. in 1995 will place a heavy financial burden on Pensioners and others on low incomes which they will find hard to meet.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote down the proposed increase.
  And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  The petition was collected by my constituent, Mr. G.A. Mawson.
  To lie upon the Table.

Burnley Health Care Trust
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
11.36 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I want to refer to the problems experienced in the Burnley national health service trust. That trust serves not only Burnley but Pendle and parts of the borough of Rossendale.
In the past few months, major problems have arisen in the trust. It is clear that those problems will become all too common in other trusts because they have been caused by the NHS reforms forced through by the Government. Because of the introduction of the concepts of market forces and the purchaser-provider role to the health service and the fact that the NHS is now judged according to financial criteria as opposed to the quality of service offered and various statistics—all too often the wrong ones—what has happened to the Burnley health care trust will be repeated in many other trusts.
I want to make it clear that the problems experienced by the trust have nothing to do with its staff, who, despite those problems, have got on with their work and provided a first-class service to the people served by that trust. In September, I was an in-patient at the hospital, so I can speak from experience about the standard of service offered and the dedication of the trust staff.
The call for a debate on the problems of the trust has not only come from me and my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), but has been loudly echoed by the people served by that trust. They believe that the problems encountered need to debated in the House, because they want answers to many of the questions that we have been asking on their behalf for some time. Indeed, on the day that it was announced that I had been fortunate enough to secure this Adjournment debate, 18 November, the Burnley Express and News said:
"At last, we might get some answers to the questions surrounding the current shenanigans at Burnley Health Care Trust.
By securing a parliamentary debate on the management of the trust, there's just a chance that the people of this borough will get some answers.
We don't want to know for political gain. We don't want to score political points. We just feel we have a right to know what's been paid out and for what reason?
The central characters are not beyond reproach—they are accountable to us all and we have a democratic right to be given the facts, figures and reasons behind this whole sorry saga."
In the same newspaper, the chairman of the East Lancashire health authority was quoted as saying, at a meeting held that week, that
"there was an urgent need for a new style of management at Burnley with the emphasis on co-operation not confrontation."
The Minister must have seen the many headlines and quotations of the papers in the past few weeks, and I shall refer to a few of them. One was in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph of Tuesday 25 October:
"Scapegoat: 'Health chairman asked me to resign to save his own neck.'
The chairman and chief executive of the troubled Burnley Health Care Trust each called for the other's resignation today in an astonishing bust-up."
1052
On 4 November, the Burnley Express and News said:
"Consultants at Burnley General Hospital yesterday welcomed the resignation of their colleague Dr Sam Pickens as medical director—but said they hadn't won a victory."
That is under the heading:
"Medical director quits board job."
As recently as Friday 25 November, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph said:
"Health boss No 3 resigns. Pay-out probe urged as Chairman Rawson follows Aikman and Pickens."
That type of thing has been going on for many weeks and we need the answers to those questions.
On 15 September, I heard on Radio Lancashire that Mr. Ian Mahady had been made redundant. Radio Lancashire telephoned me for an interview about that, and I said that I had no information, other than what I had heard on the radio. However, I said that I was very anxious about what I had heard on the radio, because Mr. Mahady had been given three hours' notice to clear his desk and leave the hospital, after which he might not enter the hospital again.
Whether he should have been made redundant or not, that was an appalling way to behave towards Mr. Mahady. I know that he is pursuing his appeal, and that he had the right of appeal. That appeal is being dealt with, and the British Medical Association is representing him in that respect. Nevertheless, that behaviour shows the false way in which those matters have been handled.
The BMA issued a statement on 15 September, saying:
"This is the first compulsory consultant redundancy in the North West Region to take place directly as a result of the internal market, and the British Medical Association, which is representing Mr. Mahady, is very concerned at the implications for consultants in future.
The BMA will be appealing against the decision on the grounds of failure on the part of the Trust—which admits to having no procedures to deal with staff redundancies".
I find it incredible that a trust employing such a large number of people has no procedure to deal with such matters.
On 19 September, 21 consultants sent a letter to the chairman of the health care trust, Mr. Rawson, which said:
"We can find no justification for the removal of Mr. Mahady at such short notice and cannot see any reason why he should not have been allowed to continue with the care of his patients for the three months of his 'notice', irrespective of any arguments regarding the redundancy."
That is the type of argument that many constituents have raised with me and my two hon. Friends who are here for the debate.
On 27 September, I attended a public meeting of the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale community health council, at Rawtenstall, and during that meeting I mentioned the situation there. I spoke to the chairman and the chief executive of the trust, who were present at the meeting. I was given a copy of a press statement, which said that, earlier that day, two leading consultants, a Mr. Robert Atlay and Dr. David Warrell, had been appointed by the trust to inquire into the situation at the unit, and that that had been with the approval of the North West regional health authority.

1053
I made it clear that, in my opinion, we needed an independent inquiry. Any body that acts in a way that is criticised is certainly incapable of appointing another body to conduct an inquiry into its actions.
I then wrote to the Secretary of State, asking her to appoint an independent inquiry to look at
"the way in which this has been handled by the Trust …the functioning and working of, that unit and …the way in which all staffing matters are dealt with at Burnley General Hospital."
In a reply dated 18 October, the Minister who will reply tonight stated that this was an
"entirely local matter between the Trust and one of its employees."
He wrote to me again on 27 October, saying that Mr. Mahady was
"exercising his right of appeal".
I accept that, and do not wish to become involved in any specific appeal; but the Minister also said:
"Individual Trusts are, of course, responsible for making their own staffing arrangements, having due regard to employment legislation and ensuring that the health needs of their local community are met in the best possible way."
On 7 October, the trust issued another statement saying that it had "every confidence" in Dr. Pickens, and that it was
"a credit to him that over the past year he has been fulfilling the dual role of Consultant Physician with a full clinical workload and that of Medical Director."
On 12 October, at their request, I met the chairman and chief executive—Mr. Rawson and Mrs. Aikman—privately. At that meeting, I was assured that Mrs. Aikman had the full backing of both the chairman and the board; they were confident that, at any appeal or tribunal resulting from Mr. Mahady's redundancy or dismissal, their position would be supported. Yet on 24 October, Mr. Rawson asked Mrs. Aikman to resign. The following day she asked him to resign. At the end of the week, she resigned.
At that meeting, Mr. Rawson gave me a copy of a letter that he had sent to one of my constituents, who has written to me about the same issue. The letter said:
"These reports have not altogether reflected the full facts of the situation and have led to considerable concern within the local community. With this in mind I have invited two …independent clinicians to review the circumstances and facilitate a resolution to the situation. I intend to make both public and to act on their recommendations".
When will the report of that inquiry be available? Will the recommendations still be implemented when it is finally published?
I must tell the Minister that the overwhelming view—my view, that of my constituents and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle and for Rossendale and Darwen—is that the matter will not be resolved until an independent inquiry takes place. What has been done so far has not resolved the position at all. On 1 November I wrote to the Secretary of State again, asking for such an inquiry and forwarding a petition with 7,000 signatures calling for Mr. Mahady's reinstatement. I wrote:
"The Trust is clearly in crisis and you have the responsibility and power to act and you should do so now in the interests of the N.H.S. and patient care."
1054
I wrote to the Secretary of State again on 4 November, saying:
"It now appears Mrs. Aikman has been paid over £250,000 to go on condition of silence."
We have a right to know what that payment was.
It was also rumoured that, if Dr. Sam Pickens had left as both consultant and medical director, he would have asked for £1 million. I know that he did not get that in the end, because he continued as a consultant. If no payment was made to him, we have a right to know.
In a letter dated 10 November, the Minister said:
"The responsibility for any settlement lies ultimately with the Trust chairman who is personally accountable for a termination payment to the chief executive."
If the chairman, who resigned last Friday, is found to have paid out a sum in excess of what he should have done, who will meet that amount? The cash payment has been made and it has implications for the pension and other matters. We have a right to know that.
On 1 November, I wrote to Mr. Rawson to ask how much the chief executive had been paid to go and on what terms. I said that the public had a right to know. I asked him why, when we met on 12 October, he said that it was clear that she had the full backing of the board. If that is so, what changed? Was what I was told on 12 October true?
On Friday of last week, Mr. Rawson finally went. An acting chief executive is now in place. Up until today, an acting chairman was in place but there is no medical director. Today, the Minister announced the appointment of a new chairman—Dr. James Archer. Obviously, I hope that he is able to overcome the problems. He said that his role was to end uncertainty and to heal any remaining wounds. I hope that he succeeds in that objective, which will be a hard task. People want answers to the questions that I have put.
Yet again, there has been a change in the chief executive. A few weeks ago, after the chief executive Mrs. Aikman went, Mr. David Meakin, a financial officer, was appointed to fill her position in an acting capacity. This morning, David Chew was appointed. He is an employee not of the trust but of East Lancashire health authority. It is strange that he has been switched from one job to another.
It is known that Mr. David Meakin was strongly opposed to any merger with the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS trust. Mr. Chew, however, has been heavily involved in planning for federation. I, the press and the public are opposed to any merger or federation. I hope that the Minister will assure us that Mr. Chew's appointment does not mean that there is to be a merger between Burnley Health Care NHS trust and the Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley trust, which is what the press is saying. That will not be acceptable. We must ensure that there is a lot of consultation before any federation takes place.
I hope that the Minister will respond to those points and assure us that problems will not be allowed to arise. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle wants to say a few words on these important matters.
11.52 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The annual report of the NHS executive, which has just been published, states:
"The NHS is accountable through Parliament for the effective and efficient use of taxpayers' money."
I want to concentrate- on that in the two minutes available to me.
I want to know a bit more about the pay-off to the former chief executive Maggie Aikman and to ask the Minister the simple question: why did she go? Who decided that she should go? Was the rest of the board involved? The code of conduct and the code of accountability for NHS boards suggests that they should have been involved. If they were, should they not take collective responsibility and resign, like the former chairman James Rawson?
What reasons did Mr. James Rawson give to Maggie Aikman for requesting her resignation in the first place? Is it true that the pay-off amounted to £250,000? What about her pension arrangements? If the £250,000 figure is accurate, how can that possibly be justified? If Mrs. Aikman's performance was lamentable, why did she receive such largesse? I asked Mr. Rawson those very questions and he refused to answer. Will the Minister answer them?
Astonishingly, the Minister for Health told me last week that the Department keeps no records of trust chief executives who resigned or who were dismissed, or of the reasons for their dismissal. Will the Department do so in future? Did the Secretary of State ask the chairman, James Rawson, to consider his position? If the right hon. Lady did so, why?
I do not want to rake over the coals but it is as plain as a pikestaff that the community is mortified by what has occurred. An independent inquiry is needed so that lessons can be learnt for the future. We must avoid a repeat of the astonishing, tragic farce that is Burnley health care trust.
11.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on securing this Adjournment debate and on the assiduous way in which he has followed the regrettable events of the past few weeks. I cannot say other than that I deeply regret that they occurred. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they are not typical of the national health service or of trusts, and such a series of events is probably unique in modern times.
I join the hon. Member for Burnley in paying tribute to the staff, management and everyone else involved at the hospital for continuing to offer a fine health service to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Patients must come first, and I am glad to report that there is no evidence that patient care suffered as a result of the events in question. The district health authority is closely monitoring the quality of care in the hospital. The events must not detract from the trust's record and its achievements. They include increasing the number of in-patients and out-patients treated; achievements in the learning disability field, for which it won a prestigious award; a reduction in waiting lists and waiting times; new
1056
consultant appointments; and new facilities in general surgery, gynaecology and other specialties. The trust has achieved an overall improvement in health facilities for the people of Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale.
The course of events is approximately as the hon. Member for Burnley described them; I shall comment briefly on one or two of his specific questions. He asked when the inquiry will report and whether its recommendations will be implemented. I can only answer as soon as possible, and that the trust will take close account of the inquiry's findings.
I cannot agree that an independent inquiry would achieve anything now. I have no reason to doubt the independence and objectivity of the two consultants who are investigating the matter of Dr. Mahady. Neither do I agree that the issue will not be resolved until there is an inquiry. It will be resolved in a period of calm and stability under the new chairman and chief executive, to allow the scars that may remain from the events to heal and to allow everything to get back to normal. That is always needed in the health service.
Mr. Pike: If the Minister will not take it from me that an independent inquiry is required, he should ask for the views of the community health council. It will point out that a range of staffing issues have arisen from the old-style management. We hope that that will change, but only one aspect of the trust has been considered.
Mr. Sackville: I hope very much, as I hope the hon. Gentleman does, that the new chairman and chief executive will address any such problems.
On the matter of the payment to the former chief executive, I can confirm that she received a net sum of £135,750 and that that represented a gross cost to the trust of £245,000. Those are very large figures, but I have no reason to suppose that they were not the negotiated settlement that represented her contractual entitlement. Her contract had been renewed quite recently and, with her basic salary grossed up to her total package over a period of just over two years, that is the figure that was negotiated. I can confirm that the former medical director received no payment, although he is, of course, still a valued member of the hospital.
I should also like to comment briefly on what was said about the new acting chief executive, Mr. Chew. No sub-agenda should be assumed, as a result of his appointment, connected with the future configuration of the trust. He was appointed because he is an experienced manager who, it is believed—I have no reason to doubt it—will bring experience and a much-needed period of stability to the trust.
I should like to reiterate that, regrettable though the matter is, for it to continue to occupy the press and the minds of people locally can only cause worries for the staff, patients and everybody else, and a great deal of further noise about it cannot help.
Ms Janet Anderson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sackville: No, because I have only a few minutes left.
So those who are friends of the hospital, as the hon. Member for Burnley is—and he has just been in the hospital—will agree that there is nothing to be achieved

1057
down that route. What we need for calm is mature consideration of how those events can be avoided. I have no indication that such matters within the trust are likely to recur. As I have said, it is quite unique in the recent history of the health service that such events should occur in a hospital.
I should like once again to congratulate the trust on the standard of care that it has achieved. I congratulate it on the fact that it has maintained that care during the past two months. I deeply deplore any attempt to exploit it for any political or other reason. I heard what the hon. Member for Burnley said about not wishing to seek any political gain by raising those matters. I am sure that he
1058
agrees that they are regrettable, but they need to be put behind us so that things at the hospital can return to normal.
I shall quote once again, as the hon. Gentleman touched on it himself. As he knows, Dr. Archer
"is an eminent microbiologist who has served the interests of patients in Burnley for many years. He is respected by clinicians and management alike."
His role is to
"end uncertainty, heal any remaining wounds, and to have everyone working together to restore public confidence in this excellent hospital."
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Midnight.

TREASURY

  Overseas Debt
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much debt owed to Britain by severely indebted low-income countries has been cancelled since the introduction of the Trinidad terms in 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The amount of official bilateral debt owed to Britain by severely indebted low-income countries which has been cancelled since 1990 is £610 million.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much debt owed to Britain by severely indebted low-income countries since 1990 has been rescheduled.

  Mr. Nelson
  The amount of official bilateral debt owed to Britain by severely indebted low-income countries which has been rescheduled since 1990 is £1.7 billion.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much debt owed to Britain by developing countries has been rescheduled since 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The amount of official bilateral debt owed to Britain by developing countries which has been rescheduled since 1990 is £3.4 billion.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much debt owed to Britain by developing countries has been cancelled since the introduction of the Trinidad terms in 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The amount of official bilateral debt owed to Britain by developing countries which has been cancelled since 1990 is £712 million.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the countries of sub-Saharan Africa most in debt to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom's biggest sub-Saharan debtors are Nigeria, Zambia, Sudan, Tanzania, Gabon and Congo.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the debt owed to Britain by the severely indebted low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa has been cancelled since 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The amount of official bilateral debt owed to Britain by severely indebted low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa which has been cancelled since 1990 is £214 million.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the debt owed to Britain by the severely indebted low-income countries of sub-Saharan Africa has been rescheduled since 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The amount of official bilateral debt owed to Britain by severely indebted low-income countries of sub-Sarahan Africa which has been rescheduled since 1990 is £1.11 billion.

  Share Settlements Systems
  Mr. Cousin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce legislation to control share settlements systems, with particular reference to control of the exposure of holdings by market makers.

  Mr. Nelson
  Securities settlements systems are already governed by legislation, notably the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Companies Acts. New, computerised securities settlements systems such as CREST will require changes to the existing law. The Treasury is preparing regulations under section 207 of the Companies Act 1989 to allow such systems to operate. These regulations will not affect existing arrangements regarding control of the exposure of holdings by market makers.

  Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those agencies expected to take full pay delegation by 1 April 1995; and if he will identify separately all those agencies that already have delegated responsibility for pay.

  Sir George Young
  The following civil service organisations are already negotiating the pay and conditions of their own staff:

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service

  HM Customs and Excise

  Defence Research Agency

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Driving Standards Agency Employment Service

  Fire Service College

  Forensic Science Service

  Health and Safety Executive

  HM Prison Service

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  Inland Revenue

  HM Land Registry

  Meteorological Office

  Ordnance Survey

  Queen Elizabeth H Conference Centre

  Royal Mint

  Scottish Prison Service

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  Valuation Office Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  The following are expected to do so from April 1995:

  Child Support Agency

  Highways Agency

  Historic Scotland

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  Meat Hygiene Service

  Paymaster

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  War Pensions Agency

  Inland Revenue, Cumbernauld
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time and part-time staff are currently employed at the Inland Revenue office in Cumbernauld.
  471
  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue employs 814 full-time and 260 part-time staff at the accounts office in Cumbernauld.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now bring up to date the import-home demand ratio as set out in ratio I in table 15.10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" as published in 1987.

  Mr. Nelson
  It is the policy of the Central Statistical Office to publish and make available as much as possible of the data that it collects. Provisional data on import penetration will be included in the CSO's "Monthly Digest of Statistics" early in 1995.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when and in what form the summaries of the import penetration figures on an industry basis from the CSO-Taylor Neilson A6 new business series will be made available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Copies of "UK Markets" produced by CSO and Taylor Nelson AGB will become available during December and will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  : To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 14 November 1994]: Conditions of service for the staff of my Department incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Member States' Net Balances 1993 Community Budget

  Contributions Receipts

  (billion ecu)

  Net

  Net balance per capita (ecu)

  Belgium

  2.4

  2.5

  -0.1

  -10

  Denmark

  1.2

  1.6

  -0.4

  -70

  Germany

  19.1

  7.2

  +11.8

  +150

  Greece

  1.0

  5.1

  -4.1

  -410

  Spain

  5.2

  8.3

  -3.1

  -80

  France

  11.5

  10.5

  +1.0

  +20

  Ireland

  0.6

  2.9

  -2.3

  -700

  Italy

  10.3

  8.7

  +1.5

  +30

  Luxembourg

  0.2

  0.4

  -0.2

  -600

  Netherlands

  4.0

  2.7

  +1.3

  +90

  Portugal

  0.9

  3.4

  -2.5

  -240

  United Kingdom

  7.6

  4.5

  +3.1

  +50

  Allocation not applicable or available

  —

  6.3

  Total

  64.0

  64.2

  Source:

  European Court of Auditors' Report for 1993.)

  Notes:

  += net contributor

  -= net recipient

  "Allocation not applicable or available" refers mainly to development aid and administrative expenditure for the other institutions.

  Future estimates would depend on what specific assumptions are made about the pattern of the European
  472
  Guidance for Ministers is set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the increase in VAT on fuel from April 1995 on the inflation rate.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: An increase of 2.9 per cent. in the retail prices index component index for gas would have the effect of adding around 0.05 percentage points to the percentage change over 12 months in the all items retail prices index.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the gross domestic product growth assumptions of each EU country on which his estimate of budget contributions was based.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The growth assumptions are for the Community as a whole and are based on real growth of 2.5 per cent. per annum and inflation of 2.5 per cent. per annum over the period 1995 to 1999.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what EC membership his calculation of budget contributions were based.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: Twelve.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the(a) net contributions per capital and (b) the gross contributions per capita in each EU country after the raising of the VAT ceiling is in force.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposed increase in the own resources ceiling.

  The table shows each member state's net balance per capita to the 1993 Community budget.

  Community spending. I gave a broad assessment of likely developments in reply to the hon. Member for Moray

  473
  (Mrs. Ewing) on 24 November, Official Report, columns 353–54.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what assumptions about the sums agreed for the EU budget for each of the next five years, his assessment of the British net contribution in his letter to hon. Members was based.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: I presume that the hon. Member's intention was to ask on what assumptions my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assessment was based.

  My right hon. and learned Friend's assessment was based on the assumption that the European Community budget will fully utilise the own resources ceilings in each of the years 1995 to 1999. Assuming 2.5 per cent. annual inflation in the Community, 2.5 per cent. annual growth in real Community GNP, and an exchange rate of £1=1.30 ecu, the figures are as follows:

  Own resources ceiling (ECl2, assuming increases agreed at Edinburgh)

  £ billion

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  55.5

  59.1

  63.1

  67.4

  71.4

  The own resources ceiling is a limit on the revenue the Community can call up from the member states, not an entitlement to spend or a target for spending. The Community budget is negotiated annually within the framework of the financial perspective. It is therefore more than possible that in practice annual budgets will be smaller than assumed for the purposes of this assessment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what assumptions of the allocations to Britain from the structural funds on which his estimate of the net United Kingdom contributions to the EC budget were based.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The assumption underlying the latest forecast of the United Kingdom net contributions is that our receipts from the structural funds will average around 8.6 per cent. per year. The United Kingdom's allocation is expected to decline slowly over the period of the forecast reflecting the changes in the allocation of the structural funds agreed at Edinburgh.

TRANSPORT

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. Such costs are covered by the entertainment expenditure for this Department, which is published in the annual report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.
  474
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Members' Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This Department's Ministers intend to send 700 official Christmas cards at an anticipated cost of £668 to buy. Postage will cost approximately £175.00. The information regarding the cost in staff time to sign, address and place the cards in envelopes is not available.

  I do not plan to place a sample copy of my official Christmas card in the Members' Library.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1)which European countries currently do not have a system of photographs on driving licences;

  (2)if he will list those European countries that currently have a system of photographs on driving licences, and indicate which of those countries have a written constitution.

  Mr. Norris
  All other member states of the European Union have driving licences with photographs. Most member states have some form of written instructions or legislation which could be regarded as a constitution.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the deadline for submissions on the consultation document "Photographs on Driving Licences"; and when the decision was taken to include photographs on driving licences.

  Mr. Norris
  The closing date for receiving comments as part of the consultation exercise is 30 November. We issued a press notice on 4 November 1991 announcing that photographs would be included on the British driving licence.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the study into the main legal, privacy and administrative issues, referred to on page 1 of his Department's consultation document "Photographs on Driving Licences".

  Mr. Norris
  The study report is commercial in confidence. But I have arranged for a copy of the management summary to be placed in the Library.

  A27
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the figures available in respect of the origins and destinations and types of vehicles using the existing A27 from Polegate to Lewes on dates subsequent to 1 January 1990; what are the figures available in respect of projections made for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010 in respect of the origins, destinations and types of vehicles using (i) the existing A27 and (ii) the proposed improved A27; what feasibility studies are being made in the use of tunnelling in connection with the proposed new A27; and when these are due to be published.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  475
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Malcolm Wicks, dated 28 November 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the proposed improvement of the A27 between Lewes and Polegate in East Sussex as the information requested relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency.
  East Sussex County Council carried out traffic counts on the A27 and the surrounding road network during 1993 to enable us to compile information on the origins and destinations of vehicles using the A27 in the area. The raw data has been submitted to the Agency but it has not yet been analysed. A considerable amount of work will need to be done to translate the figures into 'readable' facts. I am therefore unable to supply you with the information you requested at this stage. I will arrange for it to be sent to you as soon as possible, but this is unlikely to be before the middle of next

  24 Hour AADT Forecast Flows

  1990

  2000

  2005

  2010

  LG

  HG

  LG

  HG

  LG

  HG

  A27 Preferred Route

  * Southerham-Beddingham

  —

  32,100

  36,000

  34,900

  40,600

  37,600

  45,200

  * Beddingham-Polegate Bypass

  —

  22,000

  24,700

  23,900

  27,800

  25,800

  31,000

  * Existing A27 near Selmeston

  —

  4,500

  5,000

  4,900

  5,700

  5,200

  6,300

  * Existing A27 near Wilmington

  —

  4,100

  4,600

  4,400

  5,200

  4,800

  5,800

  Do Minimum

  * Existing A27 Ranscombe Hill

  21,250

  31,600

  35,300

  34,300

  39,900

  37,000

  44,500

  * Existing A27 near Selmeston

  15,100

  22,450

  25,100

  24,400

  28,350

  26,250

  31,600

  * Existing A27 near Wilmington

  15,100

  22,450

  25,100

  24,400

  28,350

  26,250

  31,600

  A40
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the detrunking of the A40 through Cheltenham.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Nigel Jones, dated 28 November 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Railways, Mr. Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the timing of an announcement regarding the detrunking of the A40 through Cheltenham.
  As you know it is intended to detrunk the A40 through Cheltenham, and trunk the A436 from Shipton Solers to Air Balloon following the completion of the A417 Brockworth bypass which includes a new junction with the M5.
  Earlier this year consultants reported on the improvements needed to enable the A436 to cater for the expected increase in traffic in the longer term. They also identified cost effective minor measures which can be implemented quickly. Discussions are now being held with Gloucestershire County Council on the procedures and agreements required to take forward the statutory trunking and detrunking orders, but I am not yet in a position to be able to say when these orders will be published.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East will receive the letter on air traffic control training in Kent, referred to in his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 962.

  Mr. Norris
  I have written to the hon. Member today and have placed a copy of my letter in the Library.
  476
  year. The data from this survey will be used to inform the detailed design stage.
  Similarly, there are no future year projects available in the form requested. However, Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows have been predicted using 1990 traffic survey data. The attached table sets out the low growth (LG) and high growth (HG) figures for the A27 with and without the proposed improvement for the years you requested.
  A proposal for a tunnel south of Mount Caburn was rejected as uneconomic and not without environmental problems in the preferred route statement issued in July 1993.
  We have however, undertaken to look at measures to reduce the impact of the preferred route on the surrounding area during the detailed design stage. This will include considering alternative means of crossing the Glynde Reach at a lower level than the bridge included in the preferred route proposals. I am afraid it is too early to say when this work will be completed.

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average and the median time his Department has taken to pay suppliers in each of the last 12 months; and what proportion of bills it took more than six weeks to pay.

  Mr. Norris
  The average time taken to dispatch a payment document was 18 days, the median being 20 days. A total of 4.8 per cent. took more than six weeks to pay.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects final agreement between all interested parties involved with the west Yorkshire electrification scheme; what is the latest estimated total cost of the scheme; what were the previous estimated total costs; by whom rolling stock is to be supplied and at what cost; when the scheme is expected to be fully operational; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  These are matters for the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive, Railtrack and the train operating unit. However, I understand that discussions are in progress to determine the final scheme cost; that progressive completion and introduction of electric services are planned from spring 1995 onwards and that the PTE is exploring options with the rolling stock companies and other parties for the replacement of the class 308s which will operate the electric local services initially.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. Such costs are covered by my Department's entertainment expenditure, which is contained within the running costs expenditure published in its annual report.

  The Department of National Heritage and its agencies have spent the following sums on official hospitality in the two years since the Department was set up:

  Department of National Heritage £

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency £

  Royal Parks Agency £

  1992–93

  22,037

  17,690

  1,032

  1993–94

  18,278

  16,374

  8,541

  Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he intends to appoint management consultants on the restructuring of the Sports Council, on the terms he envisaged in his statement of 8 July,Official Report, columns 584–86.

  Mr. Sproat
  I am currently considering responses to the consultation on the Government's proposals set out in our 8 July statement. To assist me in this, I have asked the GB Sports Council to provide me with its own view of how its current functions and staffing might be realigned to take account of those proposals. In the light of my analysis, and this further work, I shall be taking final policy decisions and deciding on how these should be implemented.

  Radio Authority
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many FM radio frequencies have been issued by the Radio Authority in the Greater London area; and what is the maximum number which may be issued.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The authority has awarded licences for 11 radio services to use FM frequencies in the Greater London area. The maximum number depends on frequency availability and on the operational characteristics and locations of the transmitters.

  The Radio Authority has said that it does not envisage advertising any further London-wide licences in the foreseeable future, but intends to advertise more small-scale services for parts of the Greater London area over the next couple of years.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has for ensuring that minutes of meetings of the Radio Authority are published.
  478
  Mr. Dorrell
  None. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, it is for the Radio Authority to determine its own procedures.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to ensure that a new radio frequency or frequencies can be allocated to a station or stations playing mainly young rock music.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The Government assign frequencies to the Radio Authority. Decisions on licences are a matter for the Radio Authority. Section 85 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which describes the licensing functions of the Radio Authority, makes it clear that the authority must do all it can to secure a diversity of independent radio stations. Licence applicants are free to offer a young rock music format.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what report he has received from the Radio Authority as to its reasons for selecting Crystal and Virgin as the allocated stations for FM licences announced in March.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No report has been received. Licensing decisions are entirely matters for the Radio Authority.

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with film exhibitors and cinemas proprietors about the provision of access for people with disabilities to cinemas in Britain.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has had informal discussions with the Cinema Exhibitors Association, which represents 95 per cent. of exhibitors on issues relating to access to cinemas for people with disabilities. The association responded to the consultation document on measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people published by the Government earlier this year.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list and date those occasions in the last two years when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: Conditions of service for the staff of my Department and its agencies incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Housing (Maintenance Funding)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made as to the knock-on effects of his Department's proposals to introduce a new system for calculating the management and maintenance allowances for local authority housing upon the social security budget.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are consulting local authorities on the housing revenue account subsidy determinations for 1995–96 and our proposals do not include changing the method of calculating the management and maintenance allowances.

  Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the surveys of "Public Attitudes to the Environment" and "Public Attitudes to Planning (and Development)", the rent-to-mortgage leaflet follow-up, the Home Improvement Agency client survey and "Wasting Energy Costs the Earth".

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A copy of the survey of public attitudes to the environment has been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the rent-to-mortgage leaflet follow-up survey report and a full report of the Home Improvement Agency client satisfaction survey will be placed in the Library shortly. A summary of the latter survey's findings is included in the publication "Review of the Home Improvement Agency Grant Programme", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Research for the report on public attitudes to planning and on the Wasting Energy Costs the Earth campaign has yet to be completed.

  Homelessness Legislation
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reform the homelessness legislation in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  As my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction told the House on 18 July,Official Report, columns 21–23, we intend to introduce legislation when parliamentary time permits.

  Single Regeneration Budget, Wirral
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what formal or informal conversations, or written correspondence, he or any of his staff have had with any of the Wirral's elected officers or officials on how the single regeneration budget might be spent in the Wirral.

  Mr. Curry
  Officials in the Government office for Merseyside held six meetings with officers of Wirral metropolitan borough council to discuss potential SRB bids, and wrote to the authority's chief executive in July with preliminary comments on the outline bids under consideration at the time.

  Since the final bids were submitted in early September, no meetings or discussions have taken place and no indication has been given of the likely success or otherwise of individual bids.
  480
  One letter was sent to Wirral metropolitan borough council about the relationship between SRB bids and the European Union's urban initiative; and one of the bids has been referred to, but not discussed, in meetings and correspondence about the future of the Cammell Laird shipyard site.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost to public funds of the Local Government commission review into local government reorganisation to date; and if he will make a statement regarding its progress.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Local Government Commission for England incurred expenditure of £2.056 million in 1992–93 and £5146 in 1993–94. We are making available grant in aid of some £8.300 million to the commission for 1994–95.

  The commission has published final recommendations for 19 shire counties, of which three have been referred back to the commission for further review. Final reports on the remaining counties, including the three second reviews, are due to be submitted to the Secretary of State by the end of the year.

  Ofwat
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what redress is available to a member of the public who is dissatisfied with an investigation carried out by Ofwat;

  (2) what powers he has to review investigations carried out by Ofwat.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Director General of Water Services has a duty to consider any complaint made by a customer or potential customer which is referred to him by a customer service committee because it remains unresolved; he also has a duty to consider complaints from customers that a CSC has failed to perform any of its duties. The Secretary of State does not have powers to review investigations carried out by Ofwat, but the parliamentary ombudsman can investigate complaints of personal injustice resulting from Ofwat's administrative actions.

  Canvey Island
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made with respect to the section 106 agreement with Aldersgate, in respect of land on Canvey Island; and when he will commence the promised public consultation prior to agreement being finalised.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We will be writing to Aldersgate Developments and other interested parties shortly about the company's draft section 106 documents and the issues which they raise.

  Overcrowding
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants are currently estimated to be living in overcrowded accommodation.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The latest estimate for England is that about 310,000 tenants had fewer bedrooms than the bedroom standard in 1993–94. This figure is from the
  481
  1993–94 survey of English housing and is subject to sampling error.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to maintain estate action funding should the funds available for these projects from the single regeneration budget be reduced.

  Mr. Curry
  All commitments under the estate action programme which has been subsumed within the single regeneration budget will continue to be honoured.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government will be taking to ensure the completion of the flue gas desulphurisation fitting programmes(a) at Drax power station and (b) at Radcliffe power station, and the use of FGD at these power stations.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a condition may be included in the authorisation for a power station, to require its operator to install FGD and to run it whenever that power station is operated, provided that to do so would not be excessively costly and that there is no other preferable technique of preventing or, failing that, minimising and rendering harmless releases of sulphur dioxide, having regard to costs and efficacy.

  As I indicated in answer to the hon. Member on 22 November, Official Report, columns 66–67, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is currently in discussion with the generators about their generating operations and improvement programmes for each station.

  Housing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many forms have to be completed by local housing associations applying for grants from the Housing Corporation to build affordable housing to meet local needs; and how many questions are on each form.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Four forms have to be completed by housing associations applying for project approval and grants from the Housing Corporation. A form is completed for each of the following: initial calculation to establish the grant rate for the scheme, application for project approval and grant, application for payment of grant, and the final grant claim. Each form is designed so that check marks can be placed in prepared boxes to ease completion. The first form comprises 14 questions, the second form 16, the third form four, and the fourth form has two questions relating to each house or flat in the scheme.

  Electricity
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what part the Government expects Drax power station and Radcliffe power station to play in the market for providing clean electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the United Kingdom's national plan implementing the EC large combustion plants directive, each of the two generators in England and Wales is 482
  allocated an annual quota of maximum emissions of sulphur dioxides and oxides of nitrogen for the company's generating operations as a whole. Each company has the freedom to decide the distribution of its quotas between its individual power stations, taking account inter alia of market conditions, subject to meeting the conditions in individual site authorisations issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  As I indicated in answer to the hon. Member on 22 November, Official Report, columns 66–67, HMIP is currently in discussion with the generators about its generating operations and improvement programmes for each station.

  Water Metering
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many disconnections there have been in the London borough of Lewisham in the past 12 months; how many of these disconnections are attributable to water metering; and what is Thames Water Utilities' programme for water metering in Lewisham.

  Mr. Atkins
  Data on disconnections by local authority district and by charging method are not available centrally. The Director General of Water Services publishes data on disconnections twice a year, by water company area and by domestic and non-domestic customer. Data on disconnections in the six months to 30 September 1994 were published in an Ofwat news release on 15 November, a copy of which is in the Library. I understand that Thames Water Utilities has yet to decide on its preferred future method of charging domestic customers for water and sewerage services but has a policy of metering all commercial customers. Most water companies meter all new and substantially altered domestic properties.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  The Prime Minister
  There are five special advisers in No. 10 Downing street.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points ranging from £19,503 to £67,609 or, in some cases, at a rate appropriate to a relevant civil service grade. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many official Christmas cards he intends to send out in 1994; and how much these will cost.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 22 November 1994,Official Report, column 89.

  Internet
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to provide information via the Internet; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My office is currently studying options to provide information via the Internet.

  Mohamed Al-Fayed
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the considerations which led the Cabinet Secretary not to interview Mohamed Al-Fayed in his investigations into allegations of improper behaviour by Government Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Secretary indicated his reasons in his report, which I published on 25 October 1994,Official Report, columns 521–22, and I have nothing further to add.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Nolan committee will be interviewing Mohamed Al-Fayed in its examination of standards in public life; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to decide whom it wishes to invite to give oral evidence.

  Crown Appointments Commission
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister who are the current members of the Crown Appointments Commission.

  The Prime Minister
  The Crown Appointments Commission is a standing commission of the General Synod of the Church of England. Its membership is set out on page 38 of the current edition of the "Church of England Year Book", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Utility Regulators
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the powers of the(a) gas and (b) other utility regulators over boardroom salaries, shareholdings and perks.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The utility regulators' role is to promote competition and operate price caps in areas of monopoly. Within this framework it is for each company and its shareholders to exercise control of board membership, pay and conditions.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter (Mr. Purnell)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what representations he has received from Mr. David Hernandez Purnell; and what was his response;

  (2) if he will make a statement regarding the letter of 13 November to the Treasury Solicitor from a constituent of the hon. Member for Woolwich, a copy of which was forwarded to the citizens charter unit; and what assessment he has made of the conformity of Her
  484
  Majesty's Government's action in this case with the spirit of the citizens charter.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Mr. Hernandez Purnell has been a frequent correspondent with Government Departments about the purchase of both his and his son's property by the Department of Transport. He has written over 400 letters to the Department of Transport alone. Further correspondence in which Mr. Hernandez Purnell himself has inquired about the role of the citizens charter in his complaint has been answered by officials from the citizens charter unit, and letters from the hon. Member of 3 and 22 September 1993 concerning Mr. Hernandez Purnell were replied to on 30 September 1993 by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  The citizens charter and the citizens charter unit have only an indirect role in Mr. Hernandez Purnell's dispute with the Department of Transport. The role of the citizens charter unit is to work with Departments in developing their services in line with the principles of the citizens charter, and to encourage good practice in doing this. When members of the public write to the citizens charter unit, the unit tries to ensure that a prompt, full and clear reply is sent. Ultimately, however, it is the responsibility of individual public sector organisations, including Government Departments, to ensure that their services are delivered to charter standards. Where—as in Mr. Hernandez Purnell's case—correspondence from a member of the public concerns a dispute about departmental policy which is also the subject of legal proceedings, it is not the role of the citizens charter unit to act as an intermediary.

EDUCATION

  College Lecturers
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) further education and (b) higher education lecturers retired early on the grounds of ill-health in the last 10 financial years.

  Mr. Boswell
  The available data do not enable distinction between further or higher education lecturers and other teachers who retire on health grounds within the teachers' superannuation scheme.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) part-time and (b) full-time lecturers in colleges of further education there were in each salary grade in each local education authority or otherwise appropriate areas in the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Boswell
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her Department's estimate of the total funds necessary to undertake essential health and safety repair work at colleges of further education.

  Mr. Boswell
  A professional survey of college buildings when they left local authority control in 1993 estimated the cost of essential health and safety repair work at £136 million.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how she plans to finance the expansion of nursery education, targeted through standard spending assessment or specific grant for(a) buildings and (b) revenue funding; and is she will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is now consulting widely a range of interests in pre-school education with a view to drawing up detailed proposals on how to achieve thelarget for expansion of pre-school provision set by the Prime Minister. The need for additional funding will be .determined as part of the development of these proposals.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what legal aid will be available for employees wishing to sue their employers if industrial injuries legislation is changed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legal aid is available to employees who qualify for help with their legal costs in pursuing a claim for damages against an employer through the courts. I cannot anticipate the outcome of any future legislative changes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will consider making legal aid available to allow victims of crime or their families to seek appropriate professional advice.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Advice and assistance is already available to those financially eligible under the legal aid green form scheme.

  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the latest annual figure paid for legal aid for non-United Kingdom citizens.

  Amount (Estimate)

  Purchase Price (Estimate)

  Postage Cost (Estimate)

  Cost in Staff Time

  UK

  Overseas

  Lord Chancellor

  250

  Own Purchase

  £38

  £33

  Not available

  Parliamentary Secretary

  £12

  £6

  Not applicable

  Not available

  50

  £15 with VAT

  I will be placing a sample copy of the Christmas card the Lord Chancellor intends to send—when available—in the Member's Library.

  Defamation
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans Her Majesty's Government have to reduce the cost and complexity of defamation proceedings.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to bring forward legislation relating to the law of defamation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In December 1992, the Lord Chancellor announced his intention to introduce a number of reforms which we believe will be of great assistance to parties seeking speedy and economic disposals of defamation claims, and the reforms which could be
  486
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought is not collected.

  Magistrates (Poppies)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice his Department gives magistrates about wearing British Legion poppies in court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None. For myself I have always accepted the British Legion's suggestion that we should wear our poppies with pride and with humble appreciation, too, of those who made great sacrifices for our freedom.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by the Lord Chancellor's Department and Government agencies answerable to this Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. Such costs are covered by the entertainment expenditure for the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is contained in the running costs expenditure published in the annual report, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many official Christmas cards the Lord Chancellor and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much of these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card the Lord Chancellor intends to send this year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is as follows:

  achieved by amending rules of court have already been implemented. Also, we have made considerable progress in developing a precise framework for the further reforms foreshadowed in that statement and on which the Lord Chancellor intends to introduce legislation as soon as he has a suitable opportunity. These reforms include a new defence, recommended by a working group under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill, which will avoid the need for a trial if the defendant is prepared to offer amends and pay damages assessed by a judge.

  In addition, there will be a new summary procedure, under which every defamation claim will come before the judge at an early stage. He will assess whether the claim is suitable for summary disposal, or whether it should go for trial, with or without a jury. He will have power on summary disposal to award damages up to a fixed ceiling. We believe that the procedure will help the parties to

  487
  clarify the real issues much earlier, and encourage sensible settlements, as well as providing a fast track for the disposal of straightforward claims.

  Court Proceedings
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will make available to the public, on request, cassette copies, at cost, of the whole or part of all tape recordings of court proceedings heard in public.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A member of the public who is not a party to an action may only have a transcript of recordings of court proceedings with the prior leave of a district judge in civil cases, and of a chief clerk in criminal cases. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are his responsibilities in relation to following up the crash of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Barristers and Solicitors
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to encourage the closer working together of barristers and solicitors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Banisters and solicitors are members of the legal profession, which is independent of Government. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for either the Lord Chancellor or me to determine the closeness of their working arrangements. However, we would both wish to support any initiatives on the part of the legal profession which accord with the principles of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, by making provision for new or better ways of providing legal services while maintaining the proper and efficient administration of justice.

  Lawyers (Complaints)
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the time taken to answer complaints about lawyers by the appropriate legal bodies.

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  The legal professions function independently of Government. I have no responsibility for monitoring the time taken to answer complaints made to bodies within the professions.

  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the appointment and monitoring of the legal services ombudsman, who investigates complaints about the manner in which complaints about lawyers made to the appropriate legal bodies have been, or are being, dealt with. This will include any complaints relating to time taken in investigation.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Norman Shaw North
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) what has been 488
  the cost of work on the three main lifts in the Norman Shaw north building over the last 12 months; who authorised that work; and on how many working days one or more of those lifts have been out of operation during the last year;

  (2) what has been the cost of renovating the rear lift in the Norman Shaw north building; who authorised that work; and whether the lift has been working satisfactorily since the work was completed.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  All three lifts in Norman Shaw north were badly affected by a burst pipe which occurred on 10 October. Two electric motors had to be taken away for rewinding and there was a spate of other minor problems resulting from the flood damage, which altogether cost some £14,000 to repair. The annual maintenance cost for each lift is estimated to be £1,500. The information requested on the number of working days when the lifts did not operate could be compiled only at a disproportionate cost.

  The cost of the work to replace the rear lift was £73,000. The work was approved by the Accommodation and Works Committee as part of the rolling programme of lift replacement and refurbishment. The contractor has had to correct several teething problems since the lift was installed, but I believe that these have been overcome and that normal service should now continue. The Director of Parliamentary Works is monitoring the situation carefully.

  The combination of the planned lift replacement work on the rear and the unforeseen damage to the three main lifts has resulted in a poor lift service to users of the building over the past few months. Every effort is being made to ensure that a reliable service is provided in the future.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices, and official residences.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. The DTI's expenditure on official hospitality since 1990 was published in the answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 26 October, column 654.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department does not commission its own departmental Christmas card. Individual Ministers may choose to send cards. While specific lists of addressees have yet to be drawn up, it is expected that Ministers will send in the region of 500 cards at an expected average cost of 75p each. Cards for recipients within the United Kingdom will be sent second class. It
  489
  is not possible to predict accurately the amount of staff time that will be required to process the cards.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department employs three special advisers.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Insolvency Service
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what external legal advice he has received on the impact of privatisation of the Insolvency Service on the future disqualification and prosecution of bankrupts;

  (2) what advice he has received in respect of the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in the event of the privatisation of the Insolvency Service;

  (3) if he will publish in full the report of the consultants Stoy Hayward into privatisation of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 3 November 1994,Official Report, columns 1251–52.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the efficacy of investigations begun by the Insolvency Service but completed in the private sector, in the event of privatisation of the service.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Stoy Hayward Consulting reported that the contracting out of official receivers administrative functions would enable official receivers to concentrate more on their investigatory role. Under such arrangements investigations begun by contractors would be completed by official receivers.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cohen
  : To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total cost, including the cost of using consultants, of the review of possible privatisation in respect of the Post Office; and how much has been paid to each consultant.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government announced their intention to privatise Parcelforce on 15 July 1992,Official Report, column 1137, and announced the review of the structure and organisation of the Post Office on 29 July 1992. From those dates to the date of the Government's decision that they would not, for the present, be proceeding with legislation on the Post Office, a total of £1,613,002.28 was spent on consultancy advice. The cost of work undertaken by individual contractors is commercially confidential.

  Machine Tool Industry
  Mr. William O' Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last discussed the prospects of continuing investment in the machine tool industry with the leaders of that industry; and what concerns the leaders in that industry expressed about ensuring their competitiveness in the world markets.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Ministers and officials in the DTI have had close and continuing contact with the machine tool industry in recent years. The most important influence on investment is a stable economic climate based on low inflation. Inflation is now at its lowest level for 27 years and the output of the United Kingdom machine tool industry is about 15 per cent. higher than a year ago.

  We have also discussed with the industry's trade association, the Machine Tool Technologies Association—MTTA—ways to improve the overall competitiveness of the industry. We are presently working with the MTTA and other associations to produce guidance for small manufacturing firms which will enable them to improve the overall quality of investment. This was an initiative referred to in the White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win", Cm 2563.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Sainsbury
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect on manufacturing employment of manufacturing businesses contracting out to other firms, classified as service businesses, activities such as transport, catering and cleaning.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Central Statistical Office has estimated that manufacturing employment might have been up to three quarters of a million higher than recorded in 1989 had manufacturers' purchases of non-industrial services as a proportion of total sales remained at 1973 levels—"Changes in the structure of manufacturing industry 1973–1989 as measured by the annual Census of Production",Economic Trends, No. 462 April 1992.

  Steel
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which EC member states increased steel production between 1988 and 1992; and by how much production and employment fell in the United Kingdom steel industry during this period.

  Mr. Eggar
  Crude steel production in Italy and Spain increased by 4.5 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively between 1988 and 1992. In the United Kingdom steel industry production fell by 14.5 per cent. and employment fell by 26 per cent. over the same period.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the numbers employed in the steel industries of EC member states in 1975, 1981, 1987 and 1993 with the percentage change in the numbers employed since 1975.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is in the table.
  491

  Employment in the steel industry of EC member states

  percentage change

  1975

  1981

  1987

  1993

  1975–1993

  Country

  thousands

  Germany

  222.0

  187.0

  133.3

  110.3

  -;50.3

  Italy

  96.0

  96.0

  60.7

  49.3

  -48.6

  France

  156.0

  97.0

  57.6

  40.5

  -74.0

  United Kingdom

  185.3

  88.0

  54.9

  39.2

  -78.8

  Spain

  b

  b

  44.8

  27.3

  b

  Belgium

  59.0

  45.0

  28.6

  24.0

  -59.3

  Netherlands

  25.0

  21.0

  18.5

  13.5

  -46.0

  Luxembourg

  21.0

  14.0

  11.4

  7.1

  -66.2

  Portugal

  b

  b

  5.7

  3.1

  b

  Greece

  a

  a

  4.0

  2.9

  a

  Denmark

  3.0

  2.0

  1.5

  1.1

  -63.3

  Ireland

  1.0

  1.0

  0.6

  0.6

  -40.0

  Source:

  Eurostat.

  Notes:

  a) EC member from 1/1/82.

  b) EC member from 1/1/87.

  Employment figures are as at end of year.

  Steel industry as defined under treaty of Paris, 1951.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to assist the British steel industry in view of the nature of the support by other member states and of their industries; and if he will make a statement on the enforcement of articles 4 and 95 of the treaty.

  Mr. Eggar
  The best way in which the Government can assist the industry is to work for an international market in which the highly efficient United Kingdom steel industry can trade freely and without unfair competition. The Government will continue to press the Commission to enforce the state aid rules rigorously and to take action against any breaches.

  Foreign Investment in Europe
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the British share of(a) American investment in Europe in each year since 1964 and (b) all non-European investment in Europe over the same time period.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Table 1 sets out the United Kingdom's share of American investment in Europe since 1964. The remaining information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This is because data are not available on a consistent basis for the entire period requested.

  From sources readily available within the Department it would require converting data from national currencies to a common currency for each year and obtaining data from "National Statistical Sources".

  Table 1. Annual capital flows for US direct investment abroad

  United Kingdom share per cent.

  United Kingdom

  Europe

  $ millions

  1964

  381

  1,796

  21.2

  1965

  559

  1,867

  29.9

  1966

  477

  2,249

  21.2

  1967

  519

  1,858

  27.9

  1968

  686

  1,601

  42.8

  1969

  535

  2,251

  23.8

  492

  Table 1. Annual capital flows for US direct investment abroad

  United Kingdom share per cent.

  United Kingdom

  Europe

  $ millions

  1970

  893

  3,030

  29.5

  1971

  1,113

  3,424

  32.5

  1972

  492

  3,030

  16.2

  1973

  1,409

  6,577

  21.4

  1974

  1,469

  6,432

  22.8

  1975

  1,420

  4,584

  31.0

  1976

  1,157

  5,492

  21.1

  1977

  1,831

  5,289

  34.6

  1978

  2,596

  7,820

  33.2

  1979

  4,073

  12,259

  33.2

  1980

  4,797

  13,011

  36.9

  1981

  1,989

  5,278

  37.7

  1982

  754

  3,470

  21.7

  1983

  1,385

  5,122

  27.0

  1984

  3,052

  5,578

  54.7

  1985

  3,147

  7,573

  41.6

  1986

  2,259

  7,292

  31.0

  1987

  2,559

  11,397

  22.5

  1988

  4,170

  7,854

  53.1

  1989

  11,825

  23,679

  49.9

  1990

  -202

  10,194

  *

  1991

  4,665

  19,583

  23.8

  1992

  6,068

  17,882

  33.9

  1993

  13,886

  30,023

  46.3

  Source:

  US Department of Commerce.

  Bureau of Economic Analysis.

  *Note:

  Direct investment capital flows measure the net funds flowing between US parent companies and their foreign affiliates in a given period; therefore they are negative when funds are flowing back to the United States, on net.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce legislation to implement the chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The United kingdom remains committed to the chemical weapons convention and
  493
  legislation to facilitate its ratification will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time and other Government legislative priorities permit.

  Electricity
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the varying pattern of domestic electricity prices throughout England and Wales; and if he will publish a table giving the information he has received from the electricity distribution companies, as to their plans for price reductions to domestic consumers during the coming year and the part played by additional funds paid in advance before the levying of VAT on electricity, as from April of this year, in enabling electricity authorities to reduce their prices.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Domestic electricity prices are subject to certain price control formulae set by the Director General of Electricity Supply. The price controls are set on a comparable basis for each regional electricity company—REC—but take into account variations such as local conditions and the different customer bases in each region.

  The plans for future electricity tariffs are a commercial matter for the public electricity suppliers, although all such suppliers will need to take the price controls into account when setting their tariffs.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Pensions
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what provision the Commissioners make for pensions for those in service of the Church of England.

  Mr. Alison
  The security of existing clergy pensions is not at issue, as the value of the Commissioners' assets comfortably exceeds the accrued pension liabilities for retired clergy and those currently in active service. Separate funding arrangements are in place to pay the pensions of lay employees of the Church of England.

  The Commissioners and the pensions board are discussing with dioceses proposals for funding pension liabilities arising from the future service of clergy on a more sustainable basis involving contributions. This will help secure the Commissioners' continuing ability to help the Church in other ways.

  Remunerated Clergy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what is the number of remunerated clergy who have(a) retired from, (b) resigned from and (c) joined the payroll of the Church of England in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Alison
  Since 1 January 1994, 364 stipendiary clergy have retired, 440 have resigned and 465 have joined the Commissioners' payroll.

  Lambeth Report
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if 494
  all the recommendations contained in the Lambeth report have now been implemented.

  Mr. Alison
  The implementation of the Lambeth report recommendations was overseen by a steering group of governors appointed by the board of the Commissioners. This will shortly report to the board that all the recommendations either have been implemented or, as in the case of arrangements for the future funding of clergy pensions, are being vigorously pursued.

  Assets
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what is the current value of the total assets of the Church Commissioners.

  Mr. Alison
  The Commissioners' assets are revalued once a year. As at 31 December 1993 the total net value of the assets was £2,420 million.

  Investments
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what percentage of investments are held in companies which are specifically recognised by investment trusts and others buying and selling stocks and shares as ethically and environmentally acceptable.

  Mr. Alison
  All our company holdings are subject to our ethical criteria, which are reviewed from time to time.

  Investments (Profit)
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners how much profit the Church Commissioners have made this year from investments.

  Mr. Alison
  Our estimated income for 1994 is £143 million. The assets are revalued at the end of each year, and therefore it is too early to say what changes in value may have occurred by then.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available but I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 25 October 1994, regarding spending on hospitality,Official Report, column 543.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.
  495
  Sir John Wheeler
  Ministers representing the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments estimate they will be sending 2,525 Christmas cards at a cost of £2,048 to buy and £498 to post.

  The cost in staff time to sign, address and envelope is not available.

  A sample copy of the Christmas cards will be placed in the Library when available.

  Irish Republic (President's Visit)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if public funds were involved in the most recent visit of the President of the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland; and which of the bodies inviting her are in receipt of public funds;

  (2) when Her Majesty's Government were first informed of the most recent visit of the President of the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland; and when her precise itinerary was disclosed;

  (3) if he will list the engagements of the President of the Irish Republic on the occasion of her most recent visit to Northern Ireland, indicating those engagements which were purely private and those which were of a public character;

  (4) what was the date of the most recent visit of the President of the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland; and whether it was a public visit or a private visit.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The President of the Republic of Ireland paid a private working visit to Northern Ireland on 15 and 16 November 1994 where she attended the 1550th anniversary service to mark the establishment of Christianity in Ireland at St. Patrick's Church of Ireland cathedral, Armagh; a conference of European student unions on equality of opportunity in higher education at the Wellington Park hotel, Belfast; visited Hazelwood college, Belfast and a resident at Bethany nursing home, Belfast. All of these visits were in response to private invitations; the church service was also a public act of worship.

  Apart from the usual security requirements no public funds were expended on the visit. Hazelwood college is funded by the Department of Education.

  Her Majesty's Government were first advised of President Robinson's visit on 25 May 1993 and the final itinerary confirmed on 7 November 1994.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of Newcastle disease were identified in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  Newcastle disease occurred in Northern Ireland in 1991, when six cases were identified.

  Quangos
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which quangos his Department has abolished since 1979.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to Dr. Tony Wright by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1 February 1994, Official Report, column 611.
  496
  In addition to the information in the publications mentioned in that reply the following non-departmental public bodies have ceased to exist since 1986:

  1986

  Charities Advisory Committee

  1987

  Advisory Body on Community Work

  NI UNESCO Committee

  Land Law Working Group

  NI Health and Social Services Council

  1988

  Police Complaints Board—replaced by Independent Commission for Police Complaints for NI

  Advisory Committee on Teachers Education

  Therapeutic Paramedical Advisory Committee

  Medical Boards

  1989

  NI Council for Educational Research

  NI Business and Technical Education Council

  NI Council for Educational Development

  Teachers' Negotiating Machinery Committees—decreased from 4 to 3

  1990

  Further Education Appeals Board

  NI Schools Examination Council

  Centre for Learning Resources Management Committee

  Committee for Nature Conservation*

  Ulster Countryside Commission*

  —* combined to become Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  1991

  Advisory Board for Postgraduate Awards

  Committee for Centre for Education Management

  Council for Continuing Education

  5 Industrial Training Boards

  Manpower Council

  NI Training Authority—functions were taken over by the Training and Employment Agency

  Youth Committee for NI—became the Youth Council for NI

  1992

  Road Transport Industry Training Board

  Textiles Industry Training Board

  Ulster Savings Committee

  Accommodation Grants Advisory Committee

  1993

  NI Electricity Board then NI Electricity Plc—now privatised

  Attendance Allowance Board—replaced by Disability Living

  Allowance Advisory Board

  1994

  9 Wage Councils

  NI Schools Examinations and Assessment Council*

  NI Curriculum Council1

  —1 combined to become NI Council for the Curriculum, Examination and Assessment.

  Summary data for the years 1979 to 1985 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  497
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many quangos his Department was responsible for(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which a number is available.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: (a) My right hon. and learned Friend was responsible for a total of 132 non-departmental bodies in 1979 as listed in the "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies"—Pliatzky Report Cm 7797, January 1980; and

  (b) in 1993 he was responsible for 108 non-departmental public bodies as listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  Education Costs
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish details of the annual costs to(a)
  498
  the Department for Education and (b) education and library boards in Northern Ireland related to the transfer procedure in each of the last three years for which records are available.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  £ 000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Department of Education

  143

  156

  246

  Education and Library Boards1

  454

  485

  508

  1 Excludes teacher substitution for the completion of transfer report forms, which cannot be identified separately but includes the cost of appeals regarding placements in grammar and non-grammar secondary schools.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received alleging the failure of the Hong Kong administration effectively to enforce national wildlife laws and implement the convention on international trade in endangered species, and what has been the response.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In the past year we have received representations from members of the public responding to non-governmental organisations letter campaigns, and representations from the following NGOs:

  Naturewatch—Rhino horn and ivory sales

  World Wide Fund for Nature—Sale of rhino, tiger and bear parts

  Traffic international—Sale of rhino and tiger products

  Environmental Investigation Agency—Sale of bear products and rhino horn.

  The EIA met with the Governor of Hong Kong in London to ask for a dedicated wildlife enforcement unit to be created. It wrote to the Governor in October, again requesting the setting up of a specialised unit. We received a similar request in two early-day motions, 22 and 59.

  Hong Kong set up an endangered species protection liaison group in November 1993 to co-ordinate and implement actions in enforcing national wildlife laws and implementing CITES. The group has access to the resources and expertise of all enforcement and policy agencies, including under cover capability. Should circumstances change, or if any evidence of wholesale trafficking should come to light, Hong Kong will look again at the idea of whether a specialised unit should be set up, and whether it would do the job better.

  The Hong Kong Government are keen to work with NGOs, and is currently liaising with Traffic on a study into Hong Kong's position in the Asian medicine trade. The Hong Kong Government take seriously representations alleging CITES abuses, and follow up evidence that is supplied.

  Serbia (Sanctions)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding financial and practical assistance to Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria in consequence of sanctions against Serbia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The effect of sanctions against former Yugoslavia on neighbouring states is difficult to quantify. Assistance is best directed at helping their economies adapt to their changed circumstances. In our view, the international financial institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund, are best placed to assess the damage caused by sanctions and take account of it in their programmes. Romania and Bulgaria have active programmes with the IMF. We also support other multilateral and bilateral efforts, including those of the United Kingdom's know-how fund, aimed at assisting the change to a market economy.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has 500
  about the impact upon the Kurdish areas of the current policy of sanctions upon Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We recognise that United Nations sanctions have had a debilitating effect on Iraq. The situation is particularly severe in the Kurdish occupied areas in the north and the southern marshes where the Iraqi regime has also imposed internal economic embargoes. Nevertheless, the Kurdish leadership supports the need to maintain sanctions until Iraq is in compliance with all relevant resolutions. Given the internal embargo, the north is a particular focus for the international aid effort.

  Western European Union (Danube Mission)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many personnel are assigned to the WEU mission on the Danube from each WEU member state, distinguishing between those at Mohacs, Calafat and Ruse.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The latest available statistics relate to the situation on 1 October. On this date, there were 34 German, seven Dutch, five Luxembourg, five Italian and two British officers in the Mohacs area; 74 Italian, six German, 20 French, 13 Dutch and three Spanish officers in Calafat; and 47 Spanish and 32 German officers in Ruse.

  Bulgaria
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to assist Bulgaria with measures to help ensure higher safety standards for Bulgarian nuclear energy installations; and what plans he has to provide Bulgaria with new forms of financial assistance to achieve this.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government support international efforts to improve nuclear safety in Bulgaria, through both the European Union and the nuclear safety account managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Projects for Kozloduy nuclear power plant total some 30 mecu and 24 mecu respectively. The United Kingdom has also provided some bilateral assistance to Bulgaria in the form of emergency preparedness, studies and training. No new forms of financial assistance in this area are currently being considered.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that copies of the list of posts designated to accept entry clearance applications are placed in the Libraries of the House each time the list is revised.

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes. Amended lists are presented to the Libraries of both Houses following each revision, which will normally be made twice yearly. I have arranged for the latest lists to be placed in the Libraries today. Members of the public may obtain copies from the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Government Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22
  501
  November, Official Report, column 109, if he will list the operational budget of the Government hospitality fund and staff levels for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The operational budget of the Government hospitality fund and staff levels for each of the last 10 years are as follows:

  Year

  Budget

  Staff levels

  1984–85

  730,000

  26

  1985–86

  844,000

  26

  1986–87

  945,000

  26

  1987–88

  808,000

  26

  1988–89

  908,000

  26

  1989–90

  1,217,000

  26

  1990–91

  1,099,000

  26

  1991–92

  1,117.000

  26

  1992–93

  1,152,000

  26

  1993–94

  1,337,000

  26

  The cost of visits in 1993–94 rose as a consequence of visits made by Ministers from the new nations emerging in the former Soviet Union.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 110, if he will provide a departmental breakdown of (a) hospitality and (b) visits costs in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government hospitality fund provides official hospitality on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, not on behalf of Departments. All invitations for hospitality and visits are issued in the name of Her Majesty's Government.

  Arms Sales, Indonesia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value of arms sales to Indonesia since 1979 and the amount for each individual year.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not Government policy to reveal details of the value of arms exports to individual countries. Details of the value of exports by geographic region are contained in table 1.11 of United Kingdom defence statistics. A copy of the 1994 edition has been placed in the House Library. In addition, the United Kingdom's annual return to the UN arms register provides information on transfers of equipment within certain broad categories.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries of the British Commonwealth still retain the death penalty; and what was the number of people in each country under sentence of death on 16 November.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  Commonwealth Country

  Numbers

  Comments

  Antigua

  1

  The Bahamas

  32

  No executions since 1984

  Bangladesh

  Unavailable

  Barbados

  17

  Belize

  8

  502

  Commonwealth Country

  Numbers

  Comments

  Botswana

  7

  No executions since 1987

  Britain

  —

  Applies only to treason and piracy with violation

  Brunei

  5

  Dominica

  4

  Ghana

  Unavailable

  Grenada

  —

  Guyana

  18

  India

  86

  Jamaica

  128

  No executions since 1988

  Kenya

  568

  No executions since 1984

  Lesotho

  2

  Malawi

  —

  Malaysia

  Unavailable

  Maldives

  Unavailable

  Malta

  —

  Applies only to high treason by members of armed forces

  Mauritius

  5

  Nigeria

  50

  Pakistan

  Unavailable

  Papua New Guinea

  —

  St. Christopher and

  2

  Nevis

  St. Lucia

  8

  St. Vincent

  7

  Sierra Leone

  73

  Singapore

  60+

  South Africa

  335

  Moratorim in effect since 1989

  Sri Lanaka

  —

  Swaziland

  5

  No executions since 1982

  Tanzania

  Unavailable

  Tonga

  —

  No executions since 1932

  Trinidad and Tobago

  50

  Uganda

  193

  Western Samoa

  3

  Zambia

  101

  Zimbabwe

  100

  No executions since 1988

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the formal relationship between the Commonwealth Institute and the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Imperial Institute Act 1925 and the Commonwealth Institute Act 1958, as amended, established and deal with one statutory organisation, the Commonwealth Institute. The Commonwealth Institute, Scotland was constituted by the board of governors of the Commonwealth Institute. It has no separate legal status or personality. The chairman of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland is a member of the board of governors of the Commonwealth Institute.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the proposals that have been made to him by the Commonwealth Institute for the continuation of the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland.
  503
  Mr. Baldry
  The chairman of the institute, Scotland is in close contact with the board of governors of the Commonwealth Institute on which assessors, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, represent Government Departments, and is pursuing solutions for the future. He is also exploring the possibilities of maintaining the Scottish Institute's programmes in collaboration with other organisations in Scotland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the continued funding of the Commonwealth Institute by his Department and the conditions for that funding.

  Mr. Baldry
  My noble Friend the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey informed the then acting chairman of the Commonwealth Institute on 12 July 1994 that the Government are prepared to make available £1 million for the financial year 1996–97, £800,000 for 1997–98 and £600,000 for 1998–99. The offer is conditional upon the institute submitting by 16 July 1995 a business plan and a building plan for assessment by independent consultants, and for approval by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who owns the premises used by the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland; and what contribution is made by public funds to the building and the provision of services by the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland.

  Mr. Baldry
  The trustees of the Commonwealth Institute are empowered to hold the assets of the institute. The Commonwealth Institute, Scotland receives a grant in aid of £215,000 per annum.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the continued operation of the work of the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 28 April 1994, the chairman of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland requested that the Government provide an annual core grant of £116,000 after March 1996. The chairman has submitted a plan to the board of governors of the institute for keeping the body in being after 1996.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions or contacts have taken place between his Department and the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland about its continued existence and funding by his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  My noble Friend the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey informed the chairman of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland on 12 July 1994 that the Government could not meet his request for an annual grant after 1996. However, a grant of £24 million would be made available to the parent body in London for the period 1996 to 1999 to assist the relaunch plan. There would be no objection from Government to the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland requesting the board of the institute in London to make available post-1996 a proportion of its funding.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy options he is currently considering about the future of the Commonwealth Institute in Scotland.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The chairman of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland is currently exploring the possibilities of maintaining the Scottish Institute's504
  programmes in collaboration with other organisations in Scotland.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Nations Security Council delegation that went to Somalia visited Somaliland; what was the outcome of the visit; what is the current UN attitude to the support of peace development efforts in Somaliland; and what it has done practically to support such efforts.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: The United Nations mission confined its visit to Mogadishu. It concluded that the lack of progress on political reconciliation and the security environment meant that the UN could no longer achieve its objectives and that the UN force should be withdrawn. This view was endorsed by the Security Council in its resolution No. 954. This also makes it clear that the UN is ready to play a role in reconciliation efforts in Somalia after UNOSOM's withdrawal, if the Somalis wish.

  Turkey
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that arms supplied to Turkey by the United Kingdom and other NATO states are not being used for the violation or suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Proposed United Kingdom arms sales to Turkey, as to other countries, are considered on a case-by-case basis and are subject to stringent licensing procedures. Before a licence is granted, a wide range of factors are taken into account—including an assessment of the recipient country's human rights record and of the use to which the equipment will be put. We do not grant licences for the sale of equipment which we believe is likely to be used for internal repression.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey regarding bans on British parliamentarians visiting or travelling through that country.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Turkey has imposed no general ban on British parliamentarians visiting or travelling through that country. We have expressed our concern to the Turkish Government at the ban imposed recently on the noble Lord, the Lord Avebury.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made to the Turkish Government regarding abuse of human rights, destruction of villages and forced displacement of people from south-eastern Turkey during his visit to Istanbul on 14 October.

  Mr. Goodlad
  During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to Istanbul on 14 October he raised human rights issues with the Turkish Prime Minister. He also discussed the situation in the south-east of Turkey with the Turkish Foreign Minister. The Turkish Government are well aware of the importance we attach to their improving their human rights record.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge Dr. Francis Deng, the United Nations rapporteur on internally
  505
  displaced persons, to conduct a survey of the position in south-east Turkey; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of resources for the task.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  UN human rights investigators draw up their own programmes of visits in the light of their mandates and priorities. It would be inappropriate for any country to attempt to influence the work of such investigators, including Mr. Deng. We are not aware of any immediate plans by Mr. Deng for a visit to Turkey.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if arms being supplied Turkey by the United Kingdom and other NATO member states are of a nature which could be used against Greece.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Yes, the same would be true of weapons sold to any other NATO member state.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conformity of arms sales to Turkey by the United Kingdom and other Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe states with the CSCE principles governing conventional arms transfers of November 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our policy on arms sales to Turkey, as to other countries, is in accordance with the CSCE principles governing conventional arms transfer of November 1993; with the guidelines on conventional arms transfer agreed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council; and with the European Union common criteria for arms exports.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the extent of the European arms embargo against Sudan; what assessment he has made of compliance with them; and what measures are being taken to bring(a) South Africa and (b) other countries into the embargo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European Union arms embargo agreed on 8 March this year covers arms, munitions and military equipment. As far as we know, it is being fully complied with. The arms embargo covers only European Union member states.

  Al Yamamah Contract
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from Sir Colin Southgate, chairman of Thorn/EMI, on commissions paid on the Al Yamamah arms contract with Saudi Arabia, and which other companies he is aware of where commissions were paid in regard to this and other contracts; and to whom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have received no such information.

  Human Dimension Review
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish details of any proposals put by Her Majesty's Government to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe's human dimension review meeting in Budapest.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The proposals tabled at the CSCE review conference have not been published because 506
  negotiations on them will not be completed before the summit. Some delegations and non-governmental organisations have, however, made available texts of their interventions during the conference. The conclusions of the four working groups, which cover all aspects of the CSCE's work, including the human dimension, will be incorporated into the final document to be approved by Heads of State and Government on 5 and 6 December.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Haverigg Prison
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what grounds catering problems at Haverigg were explained in a "Prison Service News" release as a legacy of its origin as an RAF camp;

  (2) what steps have been taken to improve the standard of food and hygiene in Haverigg prison following Judge Tumim's inspection report on 13 July;

  (3) what steps he has taken to reduce the level of drug trafficking to Haverigg prison, as reported in Judge Tumim's report on 13 July;

  (4) what further drugs offences have occurred at Haverigg prison since July; and what further precautions will be taken to address this problem.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters 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 Dr. John Cunningham, dated 28 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Haverigg prison.
  Haverigg occupies a former Royal Air Force site. The dining rooms criticised in HM Chief Inspector of Prisons report were built by the Royal Air Force approximately 54 years ago. They are particularly difficult to clean, and new cleaning schedules for the kitchen and dining rooms have been drawn up and implemented.
  The kitchen is being fully refurbished. A complete refit was begun this summer and is to be completed next month. This has required the provision of a temporary mobile kitchen for food preparation. A new catering manager and catering staff have resulted in higher standards.
  Since July there have been 38 adjudications on prisoners charged with unauthorised possession of controlled drugs or articles containing traces of such drugs. Two visitors were arrested for the possession of such drugs. One was cautioned by the police and the other convicted by magistrates.
  Drug trafficking is being tackled by increasing searching of visitors, use of security information and searching of the prisoner population, grounds and buildings. Closed circuit television will be introduced in the visits room to deter trafficking there.
  We also have a programme of drug education and training for prisoners on reception, which emphasises the dangers of drug abuse and is followed by counselling, group work and introduction to a drug rehabilitation course. This is being developed using psychology staff and local volunteer groups.

  Probation Officers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have reached a conclusion on the report on the examination of the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers and the number of sponsored places for such training in 1995; and when he will publish the report.
  507
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The report is under active consideration and a statement will be made shortly.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Pendry
  : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will include the group of substances known as anabolic agents with particular reference to beta-2-agonists, salbutoamol, clenbuterol, salmeterol and terbutaline, in his proposals to combat the abuse of anabolic steroids;

  (2) if he plans to extend his recent proposals to combat the misuse of anabolic steroids to cover growth hormone, human chorionic gonadotrophin, corticotrophin and erythropoeitin.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following the announcement on 2 November by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's decision to impose further controls on anabolic steroids and other similar drugs, he has asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider and advise on exactly which substances should be brought within the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I understand that growth hormones and beta-2-agonists will be among the substances considered by the advisory council.

  Women Prisoners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women either had children when they were sentenced to prison or have given birth in prison in the past three years; and if he will list the crimes for which they were sentenced.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 Lynne Jones, dated 28 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of women who either have children when they are sentenced to prison or who have given birth in prison in the past three years and the crimes for which they were sentenced.
  Information on the numbers of mothers in custody is not routinely collected by the Prison Service. Instead such information has been collected by conducting surveys of female prisoners, concentrating in particular on those who are mothers. Such censuses were carried out in 1982, 1986 and 1989. I enclose the results of the 1989 census, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  The Home Office Research and Planning Unit has recently commissioned a census of mothers in prison. This was launched earlier this month, following a successful pilot study, and will cover all women in prison, including those on remand. The results are expected in the New Year.
  Our records show the number of women temporarily removed to outside hospital for delivery and returning to establishments afterwards. The figures for the past three years are:

  1990–91 65

  1991–92 56

  1992–93 29

  There is no record of births having taken place in establishments in recent years.
  I regret that the information on the crimes for which the mothers were sentenced is not available.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning 508
  progress towards agreement on the European Union's data protection directive; which are the areas where the United Kingdom Government still have major concerns; and which parts of the directive he expects to vote against at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in December.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom has made clear that it disagrees both with the principle of a directive on data protection, and with the specific proposals put forward by the Commission—which are in many respects over–prescriptive, unnecessarily burdensome and very costly, especially in relation to manually held data. The Government will decide, in the light of all the relevant considerations, what stance to adopt when the directive comes up for discussion in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to reverse the United Kingdom's policy towards the derogations entered against the first sentence of paragraph 2.4, the second sentence of paragraph 3.1 and from paragraph 3.3 of Council of Europe recommendation R(85)20; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the(a) European Union's proposals for a data protection directive and (b) decisions of the data protection tribunal for these derogations;

  (2) what plans he has to reverse the United Kingdom's policy towards the derogations entered against principles 6.2 and 6.3 and paragraph 2 of Council of Europe recommendation R(91)10; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the (a) European Union's proposals for a data protection directive and (b) decisions of the data protection tribunal for these derogations;

  (3) what plans he has to reverse the United Kingdom's policy towards the derogations entered against principals 2.2 and 2.4 of Council of Europe recommendation R(87)15; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the (a) European Union's proposals for a data protection directive and (b) decisions of the data protection tribunal for these derogations;

  (4) what plans he has to reverse the United Kingdom's policy towards the derogations entered against the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 1.2, the second sentence of paragraph 3.3 and from paragraph 5 of Council of Europe recommendation R(86)1; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the (a) European Union's proposals for a data protection directive and (b) decisions of the data protection tribunal for these derogations;

  (5) what plans he has to reverse the United Kingdom's policy towards the derogation entered against Council of Europe recommendation R(83)10; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the (a) European Union's proposals for a data protection directive and (b) decisions of the data protection tribunal for this derogation;

  (6) what plans he has to reverse the United Kingdom's policy towards the derogations entered against paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, 5.16 and 7.1 of Council of Europe recommendation R(90)19; and what assessment he has made of the implications of the (a) European Union's proposals for a data protection directive and (b) decisions of the data protection tribunal for these derogations.
  509
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no current plans to amend any of the United Kingdom's derogations in regard to the Council of Europe recommendations mentioned.

  It would be premature to consider the implications of the proposed data protection directive for these derogations, until the directive has been adopted. The implications—if any—of the jurisprudence of the data protection tribunal for the derogations remain under consideration.

  Terrorists
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women convicted of terrorist offences within the United Kingdom are at present serving a prison sentence in England and Wales.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 28 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of men and women at present serving sentences in England and Wales for terrorist offences.
  Readily available information on the number of prisoners serving sentences in England and Wales whose offences were related to terrorism is limited to those classified as category A.
  On 24 November 1994 there were 45 men and no women.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the system of payments available via the criminal injuries compensation scheme to make better provisions for victims of crime and their families.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government reviewed the scheme prior to the introduction earlier this year of the new tariff scheme. The tariff scheme is simpler for claimants to understand, easier to administer and victims will get their money more quickly. It will also enable us to predict and control costs more readily, while at the same time continuing to provide one of the most generous compensation schemes anywhere. The workings of the tariff scheme will be closely monitored and we will make any refinements that prove necessary in the light of experience.

  Crime Victims (Court Cases)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the law to impose a duty on the prosecuting authorities to advise victims of crime and their families about the progress of criminal proceedings in which they were involved including advanced notification of hearing dates, adjournments and grants of bail to the defendant.

  Mr. Maclean
  The prosecuting authorities are well aware of the importance of keeping victims advised of case progress, and every effort is being made to ensure 510
  that this should be done to the fullest extent practicable. I am not persuaded that legislation is required to achieve this.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances special constables or their dependants are eligible to make claims for criminal injuries compensation if a special constable is killed or injured on duty; how many such compensation claims have been submitted in each of the last three years, to date; how many were(a) accepted and (b) rejected; and what was the amount of compensation paid in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  Special constables are eligible to apply for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme in the same way as any other blameless victim of a crime of violence in Great Britain. In cases of death their dependants are similarly eligible to apply. All applications are considered under the same rules.

  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does not collate centrally information about claims made by special constables, or other occupational groups.

  Common Visa List
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries are proposed by the European Commission for inclusion on the common visa list.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The following:

  Country

  Country

  Afghanistan

  Morocco

  Albania

  Marshall Islands

  Algeria

  Mauritius

  Angola

  Mauritania

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Micronesia

  Armenia

  Moldavia

  Azerbaidjan

  Mongolia

  Bahamas

  Mozambique

  Bahrain

  Myanmar

  Bangladesh

  Namibia

  Barbados

  Nauru

  Belarus

  Nepal

  Belize

  Niger

  Benin

  Nigeria

  Bhutan

  Northern Mariana Islands

  Botswana

  Oman

  Bulgaria

  Pakistan

  Burkina Faso

  Papua New Guinea

  Burundi

  Philippines

  Cambodia

  Qatar

  Cameroon

  Romania

  Cape Verde

  Russia

  Central African Republic

  Rwanda

  Chad

  Saint Christopher and Nevis

  China

  Saint Vincent and Grenadines

  Comores

  Santa Lucia

  Congo

  Samoa (Western)

  Cuba

  Sao Tomé and Principe

  Djibouti

  Saudi Arabia

  Dominica

  Senegal

  Dominican Republic

  Seychelles

  Egypt

  Sierra Leone

  Eritrea

  Solomon Islands

  Ethiopia

  Somalia

  Fiji

  South Africa

  Gabon

  Sudan

  511

  Country

  Country

  Gambia

  Sri Lanka

  Georgia

  Surinam

  Ghana

  Swaziland

  Grenada

  Syria

  Guinea

  Taiwan

  Guinea Bissau

  Tadjikistan

  Guinea (Equitorial)

  Tanzania

  Guyana

  Thailand

  Haiti

  Togo

  India

  Tonga

  Indonesia

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Iran

  Trust Territory of the Pacific

  Iraq

  Islands (Palau)

  Ivory Coast

  Tunisia

  Jordan

  Turkmenistan

  Kazakhstan

  Turkey

  Kirghizstan

  Tuvalu

  Kiribati

  Uganda

  Korea (North)

  Ukraine

  Kuwait

  United Arab Emirates

  Laos

  Uzbekistan

  Lesotho

  Vanuatu

  Lebanon

  Vietnam

  Liberia

  Yemen

  Libya

  Zaire

  Madagascar

  Zambia

  Maldives

  Zimbabwe

  Mali

  Talacre Beach, Clwyd
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now agree the draft byelaw proposed for Talacre beach, Clwyd by Delyn borough council.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Home Office officials wrote to the council on 25 November giving provisional approval to the byelaws.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Politically Sensitive Implications
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) from what sources cases with politically sensitive implications are referred to him;

  (2) what procedure he adopts when dealing with cases with politically sensitive implications;

  (3) what have been the sources encouraging him to take action against (a) anti-road protesters, (b) arms to Iraq cases and (c) whistleblowers against Government activity; and how he has analysed these requests before making his decision.

  The Attorney-General
  Cases may be drawn to my attention by a variety of sources but cases of the type described by the hon. Member would most probably be referred to me by a prosecuting authority.

  Criminal proceedings in all cases including those described by the hon. Member would be initiated by the relevant prosecuting authority and not by me.

  The proper approach to any such case was described to the House on 28 January 1951, Official Report, column 683 by the then Attorney-General, who set out the principles which have been consistently followed by
  512
  successive Attorneys-General of either party. I have supplied a copy of the relevant text to the hon. Member.

  Extradition
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General if it is the practice of his Department to indicate to the Irish Attorney-General if extradition requests are urgent or important or both.

  The Attorney-General
  If there are specific time constraints, for example if the person whose return is sought is liable to be released from custody in the Republic of Ireland, it is the practice to draw attention to them.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General on what date officials in his Department advised the Irish Attorney-General that it was expected that there would be a voluntary return to Northern Ireland by Brendan Smyth and that as a consequence it was not therefore necessary to proceed with the extradition request.

  The Attorney-General
  Officials of my Department informed the Irish Attorney-General's office on 6 December 1993 that there was a prospect of Brendan Smyth returning voluntarily to Northern Ireland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Department of Trade and Industry surveys on British-registered fishing vessels have been carried out in Spanish ports.

  Mr. Norris
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes. The majority of surveys under the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975 are undertaken in United Kingdom ports but some are carried out elsewhere, including Spain.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. Such costs are included in the Ministry's expenditure on official hospitality, figures for which were given on 25 October,Official Report, column 548.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Approximately 550 official Christmas cards will be sent by MAFF Ministers in 1994. Three designs have been chosen from the Charity
  513
  Christmas Card Council catalogue, at a cost of £252. No estimate is available of the staff and postage costs involved. Samples of the cards have been placed in the Library.

  Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether all blood samples from the herd of Linda and Tim Blything of Cheshire were tested for BIV at the Animal Health Institute; and to what extent tests for BIV on the herd were regarded as abnormal.

  Mrs. Browning
  We do not divulge information on specific cases on the grounds of confidentiality unless the information has already been put into the public domain by the parties concerned. In this instance, we can confirm that blood samples from the herd of Mr. and Mrs. Blything have been examined at the Institute of Animal Health and the results of the serological examinations would suggest that infection by bovine immunodeficiency-like virus—BIV—is widespread in the herd.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department employs one special adviser.

  Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Industry
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with European Commission about alleged illegal national financial support to the pig industry; if EC funding is available to national Governments for schemes to help their pig industry; and what action he proposes taking to assist United Kingdom pig producers.

  Mr. Jack
  We follow up all evidence of illegal state aids in other member states with the European Commission. Only in the case of France have we established the existence of illegal aid in the pigmeat sector. After a great deal of pressure from us the Commission announced on 27 July that parts of a package of French state aids for pig farmers were illegal. Further proceedings have now begun against French Government guarantees for loans through the Stabiporc scheme. The Commission has sought comments from member states and other interested parties; we will be submitting a robust response and will keep up the pressure on the Commission to ensure that action is taken.

  The Government are committed to a successful pig industry and have provided support by releasing feed wheat from intervention stocks, funding research and
  514
  development in the pig sector, giving financial assistance to collaborative marketing projects and promoting improvements in key production areas through the publication of booklets, ADAS workshops and promotions in the trade press.

  Forestry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and which local authorities have responded to the consultation paper "Out Forests, the Way Ahead"; and how many and which local authorities have expressed reservations about the proposal to continue with the disposal of woodland and the loss of public access in these woodlands.

  Mr. Jack
  Thirteen local authorities in England have responded; nine have expressed reservations about the proposals securing public access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission as follows:

  Cheshire County Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  Exeter City Council1

  Forest of Dean District Council1

  Hampshire County Council

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire County Council1

  Leicestershire County Council1

  New Forest District Council1

  Northamptonshire County Council1

  Shropshire County Council1

  Staffordshire County Council1

  Test Valley Borough Council

  Winchester City Council1

  1Councils which have expressed reservations

  Sheep Annual Premiums
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep annual premiums have been made to date; and what is the total value of such payments.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: By 18 November, first and second advance payments had been made on a total of £38,385 claims in England, representing a value of £101,920,444.

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: No guidelines are issued specifically about relations with lobbying companies. The conduct of Ministers in this respect is governed by the guidance in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The departmental staff manual incorporates the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

EMPLOYMENT

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices and official residences.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Disaggregated information of this nature is not available. Such costs are covered by the entertainment expenditure for this Department which is published in the annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Training
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people completed their training under (1) the training for work scheme and (2) youth training broken down by gender both regionally and nationally; how many successfully found employment on(a) immediate completion of their training, (b) up to three months after completion of training and (c) up to six months after completion of training; and how many were without work one year after completion, for each year since inception of both schemes.

  Mr. Paice
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Vacancies
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current numbers and categories of employment vacancies.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In October 1994 there were 194,981 unfilled vacancies at jobcentres, the highest number since June 1990. Further details of these vacancies, including occupational classification, is available from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers of young people who were registered for youth training, broken down both regionally and nationally and by gender, who are(a) currently without offer of a place, (b) ineligible for income support or (c) receiving special hardship allowance in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available. However, the number of young people covered by the youth training guarantee who have been registered with careers services in England for eight or more weeks is provided in the following table:

  Region1

  October 19932

  October 19943

  South East

  670

  48

  London

  491

  171

  Eastern

  538

  113

  South West

  208

  130

  West Midlands

  183

  65

  East Midlands

  290

  56

  516

  Region1

  October 19932

  October 19943

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  146

  174

  Merseyside

  271

  27

  North West

  337

  114

  North East

  198

  162

  England

  3,332

  1,060

  Notes:

  1 Employment Department training, enterprise and education directorate regions.

  2 14 October 1993.

  3 31 October 1994.

  All claims for income support from 16 and 17-year-olds are automatically considered under the severe hardship provision unless entitlement under the normal provisions already exist. So far this year, around 86 per cent. of claims under severe hardship have been successful.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the minimum salary for a 16-year-old employed by his Department in London; and how many are so employed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The minimum salary for a 16-year-old employed by the Employment Department group in London is £4,995 for non-industrial staff. There is currently one 16-year-old employed by the ED group in London.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Cairo Waste Water Project
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was entailed in(a) the contract 18: Cairo waste water project awarded to Biwater International and (b) the supervision of contract 18: Cairo waste water project awarded to Taylor Binnie and Partners.

  Mr. Baldry
  Contract 18 provides the Egyptian General Organisation for Sanitary Drainage with services for:preparation of the systems and procedures needed to run the new East Bank pumping stations, including the provision of information to management;
  operating and maintaining the stations in accordance with these systems and procedures;
  training GOSD personnel, who will take over from the contractor and run the stations subsequently; and
  technical support following handover to GOSD.

  Taylor Binnie is providing detailed technical supervision and administration. Its supervisory role includes ensuring that the systems and procedures to be developed are compatible with GOSD's wider long-term institutional needs.

  Overseas Projects
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what total number of man days were expended in the financial year 1993–94 on projects for(a) curriculum reform in-service training by the British Council and CPL, (b) Uganda Revenue

  517
  Authority: capacity building by Coopers and Lybrand, (c) Bangladesh Power Development Board action plan for performance improvement by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, (d) Qa Disi basin water study by Haiste International Ltd., (e) agricultural support services project by Hunting Technical Services and (f) mass privatisation adviser by Warburg and Co. Ltd.

  Mr. Baldry
  Financing arrangements with contractors vary from project to project and it is not always possible to be precise about the number of man days expended under each contract.

  (a) Approximately 540 man days.

  (b) Four staff were employed full time throughout 1993–94 and they were joined by two others who worked from May 1993 to the end of the financial year.

  (c) Approximately 45 man days.

  (d) 1,546 man days.

  (e) Approximately 1,949 man days.

  (f) This is a fixed fee contract against which there are no pre-set manpower inputs.

  Privatisation Advisers
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what countries Schroders and Warburg and Co. Ltd. was employed as mass privatisation advisers(a) in the financial year 1992–93 and (b) since.

  Mr. Baldry
  J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co. Ltd.—Schroders—was employed to give advice to the Government of Hungary on mass privatisation from February until April 1992. As a member of a consortium led by Ernst and Young Management Consultants, it gave advice on various aspects of mass privatisation to the Czech and Slovak Republics between September 1992 and September 1993.

  S. G. Warburg and Co. Ltd. is contracted to give advice to Poland on mass privatisation from 1 November 1992 until 31 December 1994.

  Crown Agents
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which country the Crown Agents provided technical co-operation support for an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development rehabilitation loan in the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1992–93, the Crown Agents provided technical co-operation and training support to Government procurement agents within the Russian Federation to assist them in the implementation of a World bank rehabilitation loan.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total bill for Overseas Development Administration staff travel in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  The cost of official travel on administering the aid programme by staff of the Overseas Development Administration was £1.4 million in 1993–94. That includes travel by spouses and children of staff serving in overseas locations.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Overseas Development Administration spending on scheduled 518
  airline flights during the financial year 1993–94 consisted of (a) economy class, (b) business-club class and (c) first-class travel.

  Mr. Baldry
  The proportions are approximately(a) 23 per cent. economy class, (b) 76 per cent. business-club class and (c) 1 per cent. first class.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the project specifications for(a) the energy efficiency in buildings project awarded to the Building Research Establishment, (b) the energy efficiency training project awarded to March Consultancy and (c) the short-term energy requirement study awarded to Lord Marshall of Goring for the financial year 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  Copies of the terms of reference/scope of work for the three contracts referred to have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Multilateral Development Banks
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to join and support the task force on the multilateral development banks, instigated in May to review the activities of the World bank and the regional development banks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  A senior ODA official will be a member of the task force, which is scheduled to start work in December.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to insist that the World bank cancels debts incurred by the Governments of poor countries on loans granted in contravention of the bank's own guidelines.

  Mr. Baldry
  We will continue to work with other shareholders to ensure that the bank has appropriate systems and procedures in place and abides by its operational guidelines.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure that the World bank adopts policies compatible with the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development on sub-Saharan multilateral debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The recommendations in the all-party parliamentary group's report on Africa's multilateral debt are being given careful consideration.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will encourage Governments borrowing from the World bank and the International Monetary Fund to release loan documents at the end of each cycle of 18 months to two years;

  (2) if he will encourage countries borrowing from the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to release policy framework papers setting out macro-economic and structural policy measures and social and environmental information.

  Mr. Baldry
  The bank and the fund encourage borrowers to make as much information as possible available locally about development priorities and
  519
  programmes, including policy framework papers and project-related documentation.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of recent moves to increase transparency and accountability in the operations of the World bank; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We welcomed the presumption in favour of disclosure, on which the bank's board of directors decided in August 1993, and the resulting significant expansion in the range of information about the bank's policies and operations which is now publicly available. The revised disclosure of information policy is scheduled for review after one year of implementation; and we shall consider carefully with other shareholders whether improvements are needed.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the Government's response to the German proposals to increase accountability of the World bank.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have not been informed of any German initiative in this area.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the World bank's review of the Douala infrastructure project in Cameroon.

  Mr. Baldry
  Bank staff have informed us that, following a recent review by the Government of Cameroon and the bank of the second urban project, approved in 1988, it has been decided to close the loan and cancel the balance of the Douala infrastructure component, implementation of which had been disrupted following civil unrest in 1991. A new project, which will include follow-on work on Douala infrastructure, is under preparation. This will be on concessional IDA terms, whereas the 1988 loan was on International Bank for Reconstruction and Development terms.

  Africa
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to implement the recommendations of the all-party group on overseas development in its recent report on Africa's multilateral debt on the introduction of an official channel of communication between the international financial institutions and Parliament.

  Mr. Baldry
  International financial institutions are intergovernmental bodies owned by their member Governments. Appropriate channels of communication are already in place between the institutions and HMG, who are accountable to Parliament.

  Yemen
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to restore overseas aid to the Republic of Yemen, with particular reference to the project to support Sana'a university establishing a postgraduate course in English language studies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: The case for restoring aid to the republic of Yemen, including
  520
  the project to support the Sana'a university English language programme, is currently under review.

  Climate Change (Africa)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what plans he has to continue funding for the Overseas Development Administration studies regarding the impact of limiting carbon dioxide emissions in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to continue funding of the Overseas Development Administration studies of the impact of climatic change in Ghana and Kenya; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: The ODA financed studies werc completed in 1992. We have no plans to pursue the issue bilaterally, but the replenished and restructured global environment facility, to which the United Kingdom has committed £89.5 million, is available to assist developing country parties to the climate change convention with their national strategies, plans and programmes.

  Uganda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made at the World bank and IMF in reducing Uganda's debt to these bodies; and what is Uganda's current level of debt to those bodies.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: Uganda has outstanding debts of about $391 million to the IMF and $1.25 billion to the World bank. Work is under way in both institutions in response to the proposals on multilateral debt outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his answer on 19 October to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), Official Report, columns 272–74.

  Ukraine
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the question of balance of payments support for the Ukraine with his EU counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed the issue of balance of payments support for Ukraine with his EU counterparts on 4 October. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed Ukraine with his EU colleagues on 7 November. The subject is also expected to be discussed at meetings of EU Foreign and Finance Ministers in the next two weeks.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of claimants of invalidity benefit who are(a) terminally ill or (b) in receipt of the highest rate care component of disability living allowance.
  521
  Mr. Hague
  Information in the form requested is not available. We estimate that around 25,000 people of working age become terminally ill each year although not all will qualify for incapacity benefits, some will be in receipt of statutory sick pay and others will not satisfy the contribution conditions. We estimate that up to 10,000 people who are receiving the higher rate care component of disability living allowance may claim incapacity benefits each year.

  Company Pension Schemes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received in the last 12 months regarding additional voluntary contributions in relation to company pension schemes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he proposes to take to change the protection to pensions secured by; additional voluntary contributions and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what reports or representations he has received regarding the failure of the Bellings and Co. Ltd. retirement benefit plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The proposed changes to the legislation will increase protection for all members of occupational pension schemes by introducing safeguards, including the proposed minimum solvency requirement which should ensure that the value of all accrued rights is protected in the event of a scheme winding up, including the value of additional voluntary contributions. This Department has received a small number of letters about AVCs in the last year and a small number of representations about the Belling pension scheme.

  Data Cross-matching
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of his advice, which related to the need for London boroughs to protect claimants from false accusations based on inaccurate data, resulting from his intentions to cross-match council tax and housing benefits personal data with personal data held by his Department.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No written advice has been issued but the Department has held a number of meetings with representatives from the participating London boroughs to discuss the pilot. The cross-matching of data will identify inconsistencies which warrant further consideration. The data sources will be thoroughly checked to confirm any discrepancy prior to any investigation taking place.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he wrote to local authority associations concerning his intentions to cross-match council tax and housing benefits personal data with personal data held by his Department; when copies of this correspondence were sent to the Data Protection Registrar; when he alerted the registrar to the intended data matching exercise in London; and if he will outline the steps which have been taken to improve communications with the registrar's office.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Formal consultations with the local authority associations began on 14 June 1994. Copies of the correspondence were not sent to the data protection registrar. The registrar was informed of the Department's proposals for the pilot exercise at a meeting early in June 522
  1994. We contact the registrar's office whenever necessary.

  Benefits
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of administering benefits to the unemployed in cash terms and expressed as a percentage of benefit expenditure in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table. The proportion of the administrative cost of income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit, social fund loans, and other benefits attributable to the unemployed is not available.

  Administrative cost of unemployment benefit

  £ million

  As a percentage of unemployment benefit expenditure

  1979–80

  74

  11.3

  1980–81

  120

  9.4

  1981–82

  142

  8.3

  1982–83

  132

  8.8

  1983–84

  132

  8.8

  1984–85

  133

  8.4

  1985–86

  160

  10.1

  1986–87

  179

  10.3

  1987–88

  166

  11.3

  1988–89

  172

  15.5

  1989–90

  176

  24.0

  1990–91

  182

  20.9

  1991–92

  322

  20.1

  1992–93

  269

  15.3

  1993–941

  —

  —

  1 Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of information technology, computing systems and equipment in his Departments and its agencies in each of the last three years, distinguishing between(a) capital and equipment, (b) in-house provision services and (c) contracted services and consultancy.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table. The figures are on a commercial—accruals—basis.

  1993–94 £

  1992–93 £

  1991–92 £

  Cost of Capital and equipment (depreciation)

  64,640

  58,525

  58,237

  In-house provision1

  290,330

  276,109

  267,021

  Consultants/Contractors2

  95,352

  110,533

  97,158

  Total Costs

  450,322

  445,167

  422,416

  1 The 'In-house provision' figure is the balance of Information Technology Services Agency costs once depreciation and consultant/contractor costs are removed.1

  2 "Contracted services and consultancy" have been taken to mean consultants/contractors.

  Source:

  The ITSA Annual Report and Accounts. ITSA, an executive agency of the Department of Social Security, supplies IT services to the DSS and its agencies and to other Government Departments and agencies including the Employment Service, the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, the National Health Service Pensions Agency and the Department of Health. These costs are included in the above figures.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent modifications he has made to family credit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In October 1994, we introduced new help with child care charges in family credit and in disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. We estimate that, in the long term, around 150,000 families will benefit from this change, including 50,000 parents taking up work. This new help will provide a further incentive for people to take up and remain in employment.

  In April 1994, the special fast-track family credit service was extended to those newly entering self-employment. Most of their claims are now being cleared within five working days. Improvements in the claiming process for all self-employed people have meant a four-day reduction in the average time taken to deal with their claims.

  Income Support
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the numbers of owner-occupiers receiving help with mortgage interest payments through income support in 1994–95.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest available information is that 548,000 income support claimants are receiving help with their mortgage interest payments.

  Source: Income support statistics quarterly inquiry February 1994.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to transfer to local authorities responsibility for the funding of income support claimants in care or nursing homes who have preserved entitlements to benefits.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for alterations in industrial injury schemes which will affect the interests of actual or potential sufferers from asbestosis.

  Mr. Hague
  None, but under the long-term review of social security expenditure each part of the social security programme is being examined to ensure that the objectives are right for the 1990s and beyond.

  Child Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents have withdrawn from employment after receiving Child Support Agency assessments since the Child Support Agency began operations.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), on 12 July 1994,Official Report, column 569.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the legislation or regulations applying to the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Government have been keeping the operation of the Child Support Act under close review for some time. We are now considering carefully the recent report of the Social Security Select Committee and will respond with proposals for change in due course.
  524
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the fifth report of the Social Security Select Committee of Session 1993–94 entitled "The Operation of the Child Support Act-Proposals for Change."

  Mr. Burt
  We are still evaluating the contents of the Select Committee's report, which was published on 26 October and we will respond in due course with proposals for change. No final decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the accounts of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency has today published its accounts for 1993–94 and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed disability working allowance since its inception; and if he will break down the figures by age and gender.

  Mr. Hague
  By 31 October 1994, 51,005 people had claimed disability working allowance. Information on age and gender is not available in the form requested. The breakdown of the number of awards from November 1992 to April 1994, the latest period for which figures are available, is in the table.

  Awards of disability working allowance November 1992–April 1994

  Age of recipients

  Male

  Female

  All

  Under 20

  133

  91

  224

  20 to 29

  1,121

  955

  2,076

  30 to 39

  1,197

  768

  1,965

  40 to 49

  1,095

  759

  1,854

  50 to 59

  606

  351

  957

  60 plus

  139

  32

  171

  All ages

  4,291

  2,956

  7,247

SCOTLAND

  Transplants
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for(a) 1992, (b) 1993, and (c) the first 10 months of 1994, the number of (i) liver transplants, (ii) heart transplants, (iii) heart and lung transplants and (iv) lung transplants, both single and double, carried out in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. Lung, and heart and lung transplants are not provided in Scotland.

  Numbers of Heart and Liver Transplant Operations Performed in Scottish NHS Hospitals 1992–93 and January to October 1994

  1992

  1993

  January to October 19941

  Liver Transplant

  6

  30

  22

  Heart Transplant

  21

  22

  13

  1 Data for 1994 provisional.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  Mr. Lang
  I cannot give the number of official Christmas cards I and my colleagues will send but I will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  The costs will cost 15p each—excluding VAT—and will be issued by standard second class post. It is not possible to identify the staff time devoted to the dispatch of the cards.

  A sample of the card, which depicts the Queen's view in Perthshire, has been placed in the Library.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Scottish health service management executive to approve Greater Glasgow health board's acute strategy review; and when it will be published.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Greater Glasgow health board expects to conclude its review of acute and maternity services in December this year. Public consultation will follow.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which Scottish Office Department and which Scottish local enterprise companies operate on performance-related pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  In line with other Government Departments all Scottish Office non-industrial staff, excluding prison officers whose scheme comes into operation on 1 April 1995, are now covered by performance-related pay schemes.

  Pay in the local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of the enterprise bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the grants from revenue currently available to community and voluntary groups in Strathclyde region will continue to be available after reorganisation of local government.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government value highly the work of voluntary organisations in their local communities and wish to ensure a smooth hand-over from the existing to the new authorities. For this reason, the Scottish Office will make a direction under clause 55 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 requiring each existing authority to inform shadow authorities of all funding which is given to voluntary organisations by means of a grant, service agreement or contract. This direction is designed to ensure that the new authorities are aware of the full extent and purpose of the existing authorities' funding of the voluntary sector, and 526
  in particular, of the full range of annual discretionary grants. This information will then inform their decision on assistance to community and voluntary bodies.

  This direction complements the general provision in the Act for all existing liabilities, obligations and contracts entered into by existing authorities to be transferred to the new councils. This provision will safeguard contracts with voluntary bodies.

  The Scottish Office will also issue guidance to the new authorities on the key role of voluntary organisations and the importance of avoiding disruption and delay in grant decision making.

  New Town Development Corporations
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses for rent are currently held by each new town development corporation; and what percentage this represents of the total number of houses constructed by each development corporation since vesting day.

  Mr. Stewart
  The last published data are at 31 March 1994 and are set out in the table.

  New Town

  Houses for rent as at 31 March 1994

  Percentage of total stock since vesting

  East Kilbride

  9,271

  39.5

  Glenrothes

  5,151

  40.9

  Cumbernauld

  4,686

  32

  Livingston

  6,800

  55.4

  Irvine

  3,609

  62.3

  Lobbying Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the guidelines issued by his Department to regulate relationships with lobbying companies.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: My Department has no separate guidelines to regulate relationships with lobbying companies. Conditions of service for the staff of my Department incorporate the general principles of conduct that require civil servants not to misuse information which they acquire in the course of their duties; not to make use of their official position to further their private interests or those of others; and not to receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party, which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list and date those occasions over the last two years, when Ministers or officials in his Department have met lobbying companies, prior to a decision being made on the subject of the meeting with the lobbying company.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 November 1994]: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Companies House
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the President of the Board of Trade over the future of Companies House.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend has kept me fully informed of his review of Companies House.

  Mid Glamorgan Health Authority
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairperson of the Mid Glamorgan health authority to discuss the future of the health service.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend met the then chairman of the Mid Glamorgan health authority on 22 March 1994 to discuss proposals for the future of health services in the Merthyr and Cynon valleys.

  Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in the number of unemployed since December 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  Seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales has now fallen by 19,000–14 per cent.—since December 1992. October's fall in the seasonally adjusted rate in Wales was the greatest in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of male unemployment in Newport and Gwent at the latest available date.

  Mr. Redwood
  In October 1994, the number of unemployed males in the borough of Newport and Gwent were 5,154 and 13,741 respectively.

  Local Authorities (Conduct)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve standards of conduct in local authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Such standards of conduct are primarily a matter for local authorities themselves and their auditors, taking account in particular of the national code of local government conduct, Welsh Office circular 23/90, and pecuniary interests of members of local authorities, Welsh Office circular 16/92. Where appropriate the Welsh Office reminds local authorities of their statutory responsibilities.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the prospects for manufacturing industry in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Prospects for manufacturing industry in Wales are excellent. The latest CBI Wales survey shows that confidence in the Welsh business community is nearly double the United Kingdom average. New orders have increased at their fastest rate since 1988 and at twice the United Kingdom rate. The number of both export and domestic order books above normal levels is the highest since 1988, and the investment intentions of Welsh manufacturers are at their highest level since the survey began.

  Health Service Funding
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on health service funding in Wales during the current financial year.

  Mr. Richards
  The initial NHS budget for the current year was £2,076 million. This was £100 million more than last year—an increase of over 5 per cent. A further £8 million has been made available during the year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources are to be made available to local authorities in Wales to undertake responsibilities which have been passed over to them from the Welsh Development Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have issued £650,000 of additional credit approvals in 1994–95 and I will be providing £1.4 million in 1995–96.

  Language Courses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will explain the difference in weighting attaching to courses for the teaching of the Welsh language to adults and the weighting as applied to the teaching of English; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  I understand that the Further Education Funding Council for Wales weights the funding per student of different courses according to the relative costs of provision. Since English as a second language is normally taught in small classes to students from a wide variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds the costs per student are higher than those for second language Welsh courses. I also understand, however, that the funding council has decided to increase the weighting for Welsh second language courses next year.

  Milk Marketing Scheme
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on changes in the milk marketing scheme introduced on 1 November.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The essential features of the new arrangements were set out in the answer by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 16 June,Official Report, columns 644–46. The necessary regulations were duly made and the new marketing arrangements came into effect on 1 November. Dairy Crest has not yet been floated on the stock market and remains in the ownership of the residual Milk Marketing Board.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the effect on business and the environment of the Severn bridge tolls.

  Mr. Redwood
  A report by Pieda plc was published in 1992 by the Department of Employment. It concluded, on the basis of a survey of businesses in south Wales and Avon, that the second Severn crossing scheme allowing for the new tolls, would have a positive effect on local trading and commercial activity, and stimulate investment opportunities in south Wales. Copies of the executive summary of the report, entitled "The Economic Impact of
  529
  the Second Severn Crossing", are in the Library of the House. No assessment has been made of the effect of the tolls on the environment.

  Opt-out Schools
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met leaders of county councils to discuss optout schools.

  Mr. Richards
  No such meetings have taken place.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on his proposals to create five new health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since my announcement, there have been five representations, two of which were in support of my decision.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of gross domestic product per capita in Mid Glamorgan as a percentage of the figure for(a) Wales and (b) south-east England.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available county data are for 1991, when GDP per head in Mid Glamorgan was estimated at £5,883. This represented 81.5 per cent. of the Welsh average and 59.1 per cent. of that for the south-east of England.

  Milk
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the effect of the change in price of milk since the inception of Milk Marque; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Four.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum

  Cattle Slaughtered

  County

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  —

  —

  2

  4

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  29

  25

  54

  7

  12

  253

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  17

  7

  7

  5

  9

  4

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many badgers were culled as a result of bovine tuberculosis in each region in each month since May 1994; and how many of these were shown to be suffering from TB.
  530
  how much will be spent in Minister's private offices, his flat in Cardiff and other official residences.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally. I do not have a personal flat in Cardiff. A small area of Cardiff headquarters office is available for Ministers and officials to stay the night, as well as being used for day-time meetings. Nothing will be spent on Christmas in this facility, and there are no official residences elsewhere.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to undertake and publish a training enterprise council employer survey and when.

  Mr. Redwood
  The fieldwork for a 1994 survey of employers has been completed on behalf of the seven Welsh training and enterprise councils, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Employment Service and the Welsh Office and a summary of preliminary findings issued in a Welsh Office statistical release on 31 August 1994, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  It is planned to produce a Welsh Office statistical publication summarising the findings of the survey by March 1995.

  Gateway to Wales Hotel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will sanction and fund the erection of reliable and substantial safety barriers between the carriageway and housing estates between the River Dee bridge and the Gateway to Wales hotel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The existing safety barriers on the A494-A550 trunk road at this location are of the type used nationally in similar circumstances and there are no proposals to alter or extend the existing fencing.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cattle were slaughtered as a result of bovine TB in each region in each month since May 1994.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of cattle slaughtered as a result of bovine TB in each month in each county in Wales since May 1994 is as follows:

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Eight badgers have been culled in Wales as a result of bovine TB since May 1994. All of these were in Dyfed, four in September and four in October. Three of the eight badgers showed lesions at post mortem consistent with being affected with bovine TB, although laboratory results in all eight badgers are still outstanding.

  Job-related Training
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the population is receiving job-related training; and how the figure relates to the standard Great Britain regions and the Great Britain average.

  Mr. Redwood
  Estimates are given in the following table:

  Percentage of the resident population of working age1 participating in job-related training2 in the last 4 weeks3

  Region

  Percentage

  Wales

  12.6

  Northern

  12.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13.8

  East Midlands

  12.2

  East Anglia

  12.3

  London

  14.1

  Rest of South East

  14.1

  South West

  13.3

  West Midlands

  12.3

  North West

  13.0

  Scotland

  12.5

  Great Britain

  13.2

  1 Working age is defined as men aged 16—64 and women aged 16—59.

  2 Education or training connected with the respondent's job, or a job they might be able to do in the future.

  3 Respondents are asked about job-related education and training activity in the four weeks prior to the survey.

  Source:

  Labour force survey, spring 1994.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the cost to public funds of employing ministerial special advisers in his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department employs one special adviser. Salaries for special advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings, and are confidential. They are, however, normally paid on a special advisers' salary spine of 34 points, ranging from £19,503 to £67,609. Appointments are non-pensionable, and the salary spine reflects this.

  Young People
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number and percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds in Wales who are neither at school, employed or on youth training schemes.

  Mr. Redwood
  Estimates are given in the following table:

  Number

  Percentage of 1618 Population

  16—18 year olds not at school, in employment or on YT schemes

  29,000

  29

  Of whom:

  At college

  18,000

  18

  Other

  11,000

  11

  Source:

  Labour force survey, spring 1994.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of registered homeless persons in the Ynys Mon borough council district on 1 September; and what was the equivalent figure for 1 September 1990 and 1 September 1987.

  Mr. Richards
  Numbers are available for persons and cases accepted as homeless in the Ynys Mon borough council district for the quarter ending 30 September each year and are shown as follows:

  Number of cases accepted as homeless

  Number of persons in households accepted as homeless

  1994

  16

  25

  1990

  14

  35

  1987

  1

  4

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State of Wales what is the number of claimants currently accommodated in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation and receiving housing benefit in Ynys Mon; and what was the equivalent figure for 1 September 1990 and 1 September 1987.

  Mr. Richards
  Numbers are available for households in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the Ynys Mon borough council district on 30 September each year and are shown as follows:

  Resident in bed and breakfast accommodation

  1994

  1

  1990

  2

  1987

  —

  No information is available as to whether individuals are claiming housing benefit or not.

  EC Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has yet received, from those who have convened the first meeting of the Reporting Back Forum for Wales representatives on the European Committee of the Regions, scheduled to take place of Thursday 24 November, an invitation to be a member or to attend this or subsequent forum meetings; what response he will give; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards the forum.

  Mr. Redwood
  I did not receive an invitation to the forum meeting convened on 24 November. The forum has been established by the two local authority associations. I have suggested that the associations should consider inviting MEPs and a selection of Welsh MPs from all four parties to join these discussions. I or one of my ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Office would be happy to attend a subsequent meeting.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of Newcastle disease were identified in each year since 1985.
  533
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There have been no cases of Newcastle disease in Wales since 1985.

  Mary Immaculate High School
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a date for the repayment to the education committee of South Glamorgan county council the £70,000 run-off debt left by Mary Immaculate high school when it transferred to grant-maintained status on 31 March.

  Mr. Redwood
  It has been agreed with South Glamorgan county council that repayment of the budget deficit incurred by Mary Immaculate RC high school while under that local authority is to be effected by adjustments to the authority's revenue support grant over the remainder of the current financial year. The delay in putting this arrangement in place was due to South Glamorgan county council not notifying my Department of the actual size of the deficit until October.

  Cardiff Bay Opera House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the Millennium Fund Commission in relation to the choice of designing architect for the proposed Cardiff Bay opera house.

  Mr. Redwood
  The choice of architect is not a matter for me but I have spoken to the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. I urged him to allow the public to have a full opportunity to see the different designs and give their views, and for these to be taken in account by the trustees in coming to their decision on which design to build.

  Forests
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and which local authorities have responded to the consultation paper "Our Forests, the Way Ahead"; and how many and which local authorities have expressed reservations about the proposal to continue with the disposal of woodland and the loss of public access in these woodlands.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Four local authorities in Wales have responded: Dyfed county council, Rhymney Valley district council, South Glamorgan county council and Vale of Glamorgan borough council. Each of these local authorities has expressed reservations about the proposals for securing public access to woodlands sold by the Forestry Commission.

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru cyf with respect to water and sewerage company access to the records of council tax band allocations for the purpose of graduated charging for water and sewerage.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have recently received correspondence from Dwr Cymru about a number of issues relating to its future charging structure.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority Wales region concerning the European and United Kingdom statutory regulations for beach cleanliness and bathing water standards in relation to Jackson's bay and Whitmore bay, Barry, Glamorgan.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials are in regular contact with the National Rivers Authority, Welsh region, about the EC identified bathing waters on the Welsh coastline, including those at Barry.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the capital cost and running cost of the chairman's and the chief executive's cars; what marque are these cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 November 1994]: None. The chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation uses a Jaguar pool car supplied jointly be the corporation and the Land Authority for Wales. The chief executive uses a leased Jaguar car to which he makes a substantial personal contribution in accordance with the scheme approved by my Department.

HEALTH

  Community Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total funding of care in the community in 199394; and what the projected amount will be for the next five years;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the present funding for care in the community.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is not available in the precise form requested. Total health and personal social services expenditure on services for mentally ill people for 199293 was £2.5 billion. These figures only include spending by the voluntary and private sector where purchased by health and social services.

  Advertising
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the final cost of each advertising campaign for 199394 referred to in her answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) of 14 February,Official Report, column 623.

  Mr. Sackville
  For those 1993–94 campaigns, which included advertising, listed in the earlier reply to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), the advertising costs were:

  Campaign

  £000

  AIDS Travelsafe

  282

  Blood Donor Recruitment

  953

  Community Care

  339

  Drug and Solvent Misuse

  2,813

  Health Service Professions Recruitment

  125

  Organ Donation

  786

  TV Fillers

  50

  Homelessness
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many permanent housing units for mentally ill homeless people have been provided under the Government initiative to supply homes for those needing a higher level of support launched in July 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  As part of the Government's homeless mentally ill initiative, the Housing Corporation has approved proposals for 122 bed spaces to provide supported accommodation for mentally ill people. Proposals in respect of a further 40 are being considered. The level of support provided will vary depending on individual clients' needs.

  In addition, 330 clients have already been found permanent places in existing accommodation. Many others have been placed in supported residential care for rehabilitation which it is hoped will eventually lead to permanent resettlement at a later date.

  Northern Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the agreement between Fletcher Joseph Partnership and the Northern regional health authority is still in force; whether such agreements are currently under review by her Department or by other agencies; whether such agreements are deemed ultra vires; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The district auditor has made a confidential report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under section 20(3) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 concerning the transfer of the former Northern regional health authority's architects department to the Fletcher Joseph Partnership in 1990. After considering fresh legal advice obtained by the RHA, we have accepted the auditor's view that the agreement was ultra vires the authority on one narrow ground. We therefore regard the agreement as being no longer in force.

  As a general principle, health authorities have the legal powers to make agreements with external contractors to transfer non-core health authority functions, such as architects services. In drawing up such agreements, health authorities need to take legal advice to ensure they are acting within their powers. The NHS executive has carried out a review of non-core NHS trading agencies and will be producing general guidance for authorities shortly.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional psychiatric beds would be needed in inner London to bring the average rate of bed occupancy to 85 per cent.

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of psychiatric beds is not the only factor influencing bed occupancy rates. The mental health task force's report on services for severely mentally ill people in London, "Priorities for Action", copies of which are available in the Library, found that increased availability of community services and good bed management strategies could reduce the pressure on acute beds. All inner London health authorities have agreed action plans to review their provision of acute psychiatric beds or alternative community-based accommodation and commission any necessary additional provision for 1995–96.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on safes and secure cupboards and containers supplied to pharmacists for NHS use in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Malone
  Expenditure on these items is a matter for pharmacists and information is not available centrally.

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of studies on the incidence of breast cancer in women who have had an abortion; if she will be promoting any research into this correlation; and what advice on this subject she will be issuing to doctors and women.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no information on the risks of developing breast cancer in women who have had an abortion. The report of recent Canadian research on this subject will be studied carefully by the Department.

  Steroid Users
  Mr. Tom Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she will now give to needle exchange schemes and drug user clinics about the advice they give steroid users.

  Mr. Bowis
  We issued general guidance to health authorities in spring 1994 about the need to promote the health of drug misusers, including non-opiate drug misuse such as steroids. The guidance includes encouraging into treatment and care those not in touch with services and reducing health risks such as the spread of HIV. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Homoeopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that national health service purchasing authorities and general practitioner fundholders will use the powers granted to them under the national health service reforms to facilitate homoeopathy where it is considered to be clinically appropriate; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Both district health authorities and general practitioner fundholders purchase services to meet the health care needs of the patients and local populations for whom they are responsible, according to local circumstances and priorities. This includes the purchase of homeopathic services where this is appropriate.

  Wheelchair Access
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she gives to health authorities and NHS trusts on street level access to NHS public buildings for disabled people and wheelchair users; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department issued advice to the national health service in 1989 under the title "Health Building Note 40, Common Activity Spaces, Volume 4, Designing for Disabled People". The scope of this guidance includes the design of ramps and stairways from street level into NHS buildings. Copies of the advice are available in the Library.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 68, when she expects to be able to publish the data for 199394 on general practitioner lists.

  Mr. Malone
  Early next year.

  Mental Health Beds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase the number of mental health beds in those areas where there is most need(a) during the current financial and (b) the next financial year; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for health authorities to determine the range and type of mental health services they purchase based on their assessment of the needs of their population.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her policy on the advertising of tobacco.

  Mr. Malone
  The Government are committed to ensuring that there are strong and effective controls on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. We believe that voluntary agreements with the industry provide the best way of controlling tobacco advertising. In May 1994 we announced the main points of a revised voluntary agreement, which will significantly reduce levels of outdoor advertising and enhance the size and impact of health warnings on press and poster advertising. The new agreement will be published shortly.

  Total NHS spending on durgs £ million (rounded)

  Year

  FHS Drugs

  Percentage Increase

  HCHS Drugs

  Percentage Increase

  1979–80

  633

  —

  156

  —

  1980–81

  766

  21.1

  185

  19.0

  1981–82

  786

  14.4

  214

  15.5

  1982–83

  1,009

  15.1

  245

  14.4

  1983–84

  1,130

  12.0

  267

  8.9

  1984–85

  1,192

  5.4

  279

  4.6

  1985–86

  1,275

  7.0

  297

  6.4

  1986–87

  1,378

  8.1

  318

  7.3

  1987–88

  1,536

  11.5

  352

  10.6

  1988–89

  1,744

  13.5

  380

  8.1

  1989–90

  1,942

  11.4

  414

  8.8

  1990–91

  2,080

  7.1

  460

  11.3

  1991–92

  2,317

  11.4

  591

  28.4

  1992–93

  2,641

  14.0

  634

  7.2

  1993–94

  2,951

  11.7

  1696

  9.9

  Note:

  1Provisional.

  Pharmacists
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department undertakes to ensure that national health service prescriptions are properly dispensed by pharmacists.

  Mr. Malone
  None. Monitoring of the dispensing of national health service prescriptions by pharmacists is undertaken by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society through its professional regulatory machinery.

  Herbalists
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to allow the rights granted to herbalists in the Medicines Act 1968; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The rights granted to herbalists under the Medicines Act 1968 will continue.

  Chiropractors
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make treatment by qualified chiropractors available to patients on the national health service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We believe that the professional recognition and regulation of the profession will encourage those purchasers who want to refer their patients for chiropractic treatment to do so. Provision within the national health service is a matter for local decision in the light of priorities and available resources.

  Drugs Budget
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of the drugs budget in the national health service, both for hospitals and for general practitioners; what the cost was in 1979; and what has been the change in each year since then.

  Mr. Malone
  The latest provision for the cost of drugs in the family health services in 1994–95 is £3,217 million, The cost of drugs in the hospital and community health services is met from the total HCHS cash—limited allocation and a separate estimate for 1994–95 is not available. Information relating to earlier years is shown in the table.

  Herbal Remedies
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to satisfy herself that herbal products which do not require any licence under the terms of the Medicines Act 1968, rather than simply being exempt by sections 12 and 56 of that Act, will remain available under the provisions of the proposed new Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations; and if she will make a statement.
  539
  Mr. Sackville
  We have looked carefully at all the circumstances in which herbal products are sold and supplied. Those herbal products which require no licence under the Medicines Act will remain available under the new regulations.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her recent announcement that herbal remedies currently exempt from licensing restrictions on their preparation under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968 will remain exempt under the proposed new Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations also applies to their exemption under section 56 of that Act from restrictions on the supply of such herbal remedies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The exemptions and public health safeguards for herbal medicines under section 56 of the Medicines Act 1968 will continue to apply under the new regulations.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what protection will be afforded by the proposed new Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations for those products which are sold only to herbalists and other practitioners for use in their preparations but not directly to the public; and if she will make a statement.

  (2) what assumptions her Department has made of whether products sold directly to herbalists and other practitioners are considered to be placed on the market in the context of European directives; whether or not they therefore fall within the licensing requirements of relevant European directives; what steps she is seeking to guarantee their continued availability; how their continued availability will be protected by the proposed new Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Herbal products supplied to herbalists and other practitioners for use in their preparations but not directly to the public, which are currently exempt from product licensing requirements under the Medicines Act 1968, will retain their exemption under the proposed new regulations. This will be the case whether or not these products can be regarded as placed on the market.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the proposals of the Natural Medicines Society for a simplified registration system for its preparations which would require the demonstration of safety and purity but not necessarily of efficacy; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Herbal medicines covered by exemptions from product licensing requirements under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968 will remain exempt. The need for a simplified registration scheme for such products does not therefore arise.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations her Department has received in total from individuals and from right hon. and hon. Members registering concern about the proposed new Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations; and how many of these representations welcomed the regulations in question.
  540
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has received about 3,500 letters from individuals and over 1,000 letters from right hon. and hon. Members who were concerned about the possible effect of the proposed new regulations on herbal medicines. Our confirmation that herbal medicines currently exempt from product licensing requirements will continue to enjoy this exemption when the new regulations come into force has been generally welcomed.

  Mrs. Anne Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether preparation of herbal products in the form of tinctures, extracts, powders and tablets falls outside the definition of industrial processes set by the European directive to be implemented through the proposed new Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are satisfied that herbal preparations in the forms described, which are prepared by traditional processes, are not "industrially produced" when supplied in accordance with section 12 of the Medicines Act. They will therefore continue to be exempt from product licensing requirements.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make available in the Library copies of all correspondence which she, her officials, and officials of the Medicines Control Agency have had with the European Commission in connection with the proposed new Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations and in connection with relevant European directives.

  Mr. Sackville
  Such correspondence is regarded as confidential by the parties concerned. In my announcement of 11 November, I made clear our view in the position of herbal medicines under the relevant EC directive and the considerations that gave rise to that view.

  Aromatherapy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis she has formed the policy that products used in aromatherapy do not fall within the definition of medicines as established by relevant European directives; what provisions of the proposed new Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Pharmacovigilance and Related Matters) Regulations will ensure their continued availability; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Products used in aromatherapy are medicinal products if used, sold or supplied for a medicinal purpose. The position of aromatherapy products currently exempt from product licensing requirements is unaffected by the proposed new regulations.

  Casualty Services
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the decision by Cornwall and Isles of Scilly district family health services authority on the future of a casualty service for Falmouth and Penryn.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is under discussion locally and the hon. Member may wish to contact Dr. Stan Dennison, the chairman of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority, for details.

  Visiting Costs Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce a visiting costs scheme to help enable parents to visit their children in hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 1 November at columns 1081–82.

DEFENCE

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the situation in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Soames
  The former Yugoslavia featured prominently in the debate in the House on 17 November,Official Report, columns 133–228, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a further statement to the House on 21 November, Official Report, columns 341–48. We remain very concerned about the upsurge in fighting and are monitoring the situation closely.

  Christmas Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much public money will be spent on entertaining, Christmas decorations and other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' private offices, his London flat in London and official residences.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 26 October,Official Report, column 706, concerning entertainment expenditure by my Department and its agencies.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many official Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 1994; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he intends to send this year.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans for Ministers in this Department to send official Christmas cards this year.

  Overseas Service Men (Training)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to encourage countries overseas to send service men for training in the United Kingdom; how much Her Majesty's Government charge for military training; how many personnel were sent to the United Kingdom in the last year; and what is the overall sum earned by the Ministry of Defence in providing such training.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department continues to encourage training in the United Kingdom by foreign and Commonwealth students as an important element of developing and strengthening relationships and ties with 542
  friendly nations. During the last financial year, 4,566 students from 98 different countries took part in training in the United Kingdom. The charges for training will depend on the length of the course, its syllabus and the number taking part; although central records are not maintained of the receipts from this activity, they are estimated to be around £39,500,000.

  RAF Leeming
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of works at RAF Leeming in order to accommodate the proposed move there of 100 Squadron from RAF Finningley; and if he will itemise that expenditure.

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of works is estimated to be £10,000. This is for minor refurbishment of existing accommodation at RAF Leeming.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF bases in the United Kingdom have runways of 9,000 ft or over; and what proportion that is of all the RAF bases in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Of the 72 RAF stations in the United Kingdom, excluding USAF bases, the following 11 have runways of 9,000 ft or over:

  RAF Brize Norton

  RAF Coningsby

  RAF Cottesmore

  RAF Finningley

  RAF Lossiemouth

  RAF Machrihansish

  RAF Manston

  RAF Marham

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Waddington

  RAF Wittering

  RAF Scampton
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of disabling the fibre optic communications system at RAF Scampton and of providing a new junction point elsewhere.

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of disabling the fibre optic communications system is not expected to exceed £50,000. The equipment at RAF Scampton is not a junction point and will not therefore need to be relocated.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of providing safe access from the married quarters at RAF Scampton on to the A15.

  Mr. Soames
  If it is decided to close RAF Scampton, the existing married quarters will be used to meet the shortfall at RAF Waddington. An estimate of the cost of providing safe access from the married quarters on to the A15 will not be available until more detailed work is carried out on this related, but separate, project.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the renovation of the small arms range at RAF Scampton; and what will be the cost of its decommissioning.

  Mr. Soames
  Approximately £3,000 was recently spent on minor refurbishment of the small arms range. The decommissioning of the range will consist of the
  543
  de-leading and removal of sand which is carried out as a routine maintenance task every 18 months at a cost of £3,500.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums were spent at RAF Scampton in order to accommodate the Red Arrows in 1984; and under what heading that expenditure was made.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of this expenditure are no longer available.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of relocating the Central Flying School from RAF Scampton to other bases.

  Mr. Soames
  The total estimated cost is £3,000,000.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of keeping the married quarters open at RAF Scampton, but segregated from the main technical site; and under what headings this expenditure will be itemised.

  Mr. Soames
  If it is decided to close RAF Scampton, the existing married quarters will be used to meet the shortfall at RAF Waddington. It will not be possible to provide an estimate of the costs requested until more detailed work is carried out on this related, but separate, project. The main cost headings are likely to be access, internal roads, perimeter fencing and provision of facilities.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of recommissioning RAF Church Fenton and other associated works to prepare for the possible move there from RAF Scampton of the Short Brothers units; and if he will itemise that expenditure.

  Mr. Soames
  Only minor works services would be required at RAF Church Fenton at an estimated cost of £20,000.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of providing replacement receipt and dispatch facilities for the operation of the priority flight delivery service at another RAF base if the facilities at RAF Scampton are closed.

  Mr. Soames
  It is anticipated that the priority freight delivery service task would be subsumed within the existing infrastructure of other RAF bases. Relocation costs have been identified and should not exceed £10,000.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint air miss working group report on the air miss between an RAF Bulldog and a US Air Force F11 over East Lothian on 26 June 1991.

  Mr. Soames
  A copy of this report is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint air miss working group report on the air miss between an RAF Bulldog and an RAF Tornado near Tranent on 11 May 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  A copy of this report is available in the Library of the House.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State of Defence if he will list the dates, locations, and nature of 544
  the activity notified, for all instances in which helicopter operators have been informed of particularly intense military lowflying activities in accordance with paragraph 2.4 of aeronautical information circular 156/1993, dated 21 October 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  The aeronautical information circular, AIC, 156/1993 was replaced by AIC 73/1994 dated 30 June following a working group review of the pipeline inspection notification system—PINS.

  The requirement of paragraph 2.4 of AIC 156/1993 does not feature in the new AIC since the working group was satisfied that, in practice, all intense military low-flying activity was already notified to helicopter operators under the existing notice to airmen, NOTAM, system and there was no requirement for additional arrangements.

  Since 21 October 1993, almost 6,000 NOTAMs have been issued, covering various types of air activity. To identify those which warned specifically of intense military low-flying activity would incur disproportionate cost.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the actions taken by his Department in response to each of the recommendations of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch's reports on the military-civil collisions on 29 August 1991 and 23 June 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  As a result of the accident on 29 August 1991, my Department in conjunction with other authorities has implemented the recommendations made by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, as follows:

  (i) Greater publicity of the civil aircraft notification procedure—CANP—and its benefits has been achieved through articles in general aviation safety leaflets and briefings to civil pilots at a number of open evenings.

  (ii) Extension of the CNAP system to encompass civil aerial work carried out below 1,000 ft was introduced in August 1993.

  (iii) Information has been published showing the directional flow of aircraft in the few areas of high-intensity low-flying operations and RAF stations operating fast jets have been identified.

  As far as the accident on 23 June 1993 is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 7 July, Official Report, column 264. My Department continues to work with the appropriate authorities and organisations in order to maximise flight safety in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many notifications have been made under(a) the civil aircraft notification procedure and (b) the pipeline inspection notification system in each month from October 1993 onwards; and how many reports have been received in each month of (a) breaches of notified areas by military aircraft and (b) non-compliance with notifications by civil aircraft.

  Mr. Soames
  Under the civil aircraft notification procedure only commercial activity attracts temporary avoidance status; details of recreational and other aerial activity are passed as warnings to military aircrew who will take account of them in planning their sorties. The
  545
  numbers of notifications, broken down by type of activity, received in each month since October 1993 are as follows:

  Commercial activity

  Recreational and other aerial activity

  1993

  October

  50

  79

  November

  10

  52

  December

  5

  13

  1994

  January

  15

  31

  February

  26

  63

  March

  22

  40

  April

  40

  65

  May

  59

  117

  June

  58

  106

  July

  57

  134

  August

  62

  90

  September

  34

  81

  October

  35

  95

  Since October 1993, there have been six reported breaches of avoidances accorded to commercial activity; three in June 1994, one in September 1994 and two in October 1994.

  Under the pipeline inspection notification system a summary of all relevant activity is issued daily from Monday to Friday. Each summary comprises several individual notifications; it would incur disproportionate cost to identify the total number of notifications made.

  Notification under PINS attract the same status as recreational and other aerial activity notified under CANP. They constitute a warning of activity, but do not attract avoidance status; they cannot, therefore, be breached.

  Participation in CANP or PINS by civil pilots is on a voluntary basis, the question of non-compliance does not therefore arise, nor is there any mechanism for identifying civil activity which could have been but was not notified.

  Pipeline Inspection Notification System
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the review of the first six months of operation of the pipeline inspection notification system; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Soames
  The review of the pipeline inspection notification system was carried out by a working group chaired by the National Air Traffic Service on which my Department, the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Helicopter Advisory Board, helicopter operators and companies making use of pipeline inspection services were all represented.

  The group's main recommendations were that the system be made more flexible to allow more precise notifications of pipeline inspection activity, and that details of the areas in which military fast jets are permitted to fly below 250 ft be incorporated in the revised AIC.

  No formal report was produced. The group's recommendations were, however, incorporated into the revised system which was notified to air users in the aeronautical information circular 73/1994 issued by the Civil Aviation Authority on 30 June 1994.

  Red Arrows
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it is proposed to relocate the Red Arrows; and what is the planned expenditure at that base to accommodate them.

  Mr. Soames
  It is proposed to relocate the Red Arrows to RAF Marham in October 1995 at a total estimated cost of £3 million.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF bases are supplied by underground fuel pipelines; and what proportion this is of all RAF bases in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Of 35 RAF flying stations in the United Kingdom, including three USAF bases, 18 are connected to the military pipeline system which provides aviation fuel. The remainder are supplied by road.

  Nuclear Weapons Store
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if details of the nuclear weapons store at USAF Lakenheath are supplied to Her Majesty's Government; and what provision is made for the store to be subject to the consent of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Soames
  Inspection and formal approval by the relevant United Kingdom authorities is required before any facility may be used for the storage of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responsibility he has for organising emergency plans involving all the local emergency services in relation to the nuclear weapons store at USAF Lakenheath; and how frequently the emergency plan is tested.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence is the lead Department for the response to any accident involving a nuclear weapon in the United Kingdom. Generic contingency plans exist which take account of the responsibilities of the civil emergency services. Response arrangements, including joint United Kingdom—United States arrangements, are regularly tested; the most recent major exercise took place in April and included full participation by the local authorities and civil emergency services in Suffolk.

  RAF Lakenheath
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been(a) arrested, (b) charged, (c) convicted and (d) acquitted over matters relating to byelaws at RAF Lakenheath in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Soames
  The figures are as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (a) Arrested

  —

  3

  —

  (b) Charged

  —

  3

  —

  (c) Convicted

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Acquitted

  —

  —

  —

  Nurse Elaine Dugard
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when it was first known that Elaine Dugard, a petty officer registered nurse, had contracted the HIV virus;

  (2) between which dates Elaine Dugard worked as a nurse at the royal naval hospital in Plymouth;

  (3) between which dates Elaine Dugard worked in the casualty unit at the royal naval hospital in Plymouth.

  Mr. Soames
  While I can confirm that nurse Dugard worked a the royal naval hospital Plymouth, it is not my Department's practice to give details of an individual's service employment or medical records.

  Haymes Garth
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department received the report from KPMG Peat Marwick into spending at Haymes Garth; if he will allow officers named in the report the opportunity to comment on it before its publication; when he expects to publish the report; and what is the estimated cost of conducting the inquiry.

  Mr. Soames
  KPMG Peat Marwick has not yet submitted its final report on Haymes Garth. Draft extracts have been shown to the individuals who were interviewed in the course of the investigation, and the report is now being finalised in the light of their comments. Once the report has been received we shall want to give its findings careful consideration. The latest estimate of the cost of employing KPMG Peat Marwick to undertake this work is around £100,000.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of the amount that will have been spent for the recent refurbishment and redecoration of official service residence Haymes Garth in Gloucestershire; who was the officer responsible for overseeing this budget; what is the present valuation of Haymes Garth; and on how many occasions those responsible for the refurbishment and redecoration travelled overseas to discuss details of the changes proposed.

  Mr. Soames
  Final reconciliation of the full costs of refurbishment and redecoration of Haymes Garth is in hand. Current indicators are that the total will be slightly lower than the figure given in my predecessor's statement on 4 July,Official Report, column 85, but I shall report the final figure to the House as part of the further statement I have promised. In the light of the ongoing study into this particular case it would be inappropriate at this stage to name any individual.

  Although informal assessments of the value of Haymes Garth have been made to assist the investigations, there has been no recent full commercial valuation.

  The cost of refurbishment and redecoration includes two brief liaison visits to Germany by a contractor.

  Accountancy System
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of the contract awarded to SEMA to install and run a commercially based accountancy system.

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the Defence Research Agency and I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Chisholm, to answer direct.
  548
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 28 November 1994:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying to your question concerning the value of the contract awarded to SEMA to install and run a commercially based accountancy system.
  DRA's Commercial Accounting System (CAS) was developed to facilitate the creation of the Trading Fund in April 1993. The System is one of the largest integrated accounting systems operating in the United Kingdom. Five software companies received orders of £0.5 million or more. SEMA was one of those companies and its contribution was worth £1.2 million.
  The running of the CAS is undertaken in-house by DRA's Financial Accounting Department. It places a number of support contracts for various services. SEMA has a contract to supply a Financial Systems Management service. This was awarded in August 1993 and the payments to December 1994 are expected to be £0.7 million

  Research Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the background and qualifications of the new chief executive of the Defence Research Agency.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to replace the current chief executive of the DRA, John Chisholm. Mr. Chisholm graduated from Cambridge university with a BA in mechanical sciences and is a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers. He has extensive experience in the service industries, having held senior positions in CAP Scientific and the SEMA group. He has been chief executive of the DRA since July 1991.

  Military Equipment
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what items of military equipment of British manufacture are being evaluated by the United States Government under the provisions of the foreign competitive testing programme for 1995; and what items of British manufacture have been bought by the United States Government since that programme was first set up in 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United States Government have recently announced that six items of military equipment of British manufacture have been authorised for evaluation under the provisions of the United States foreign comparative testing programme for 1995. These are: automatic chemical agent alarm; small projected line charge; acoustic cladding underwater repair system; advanced short range air-to-air missile; mini strike initiator; and minimum operating strip lighting kit. Since 1990, the United States Government have announced the purchase of six items of British manufacture as a result of successful FCT evaluations. These are: chemical agent monitor; improved chemical agent monitor; impressed current cathodic protection; aerial target vector scoring system; versatile exercise mine system; and enhanced electronic warfare scenario generator.

  Operational Requirements
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Mr. Mike Wood, currently the United Kingdom marketing executive for Lockheed, and his deputy, Mr. Richard Lumb, were, when employed by his Department, privy to confidential information on the
  549
  RAF's future operational requirements including its plans to refurbish or replace the Herclus C-130K aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  All Crown servants, including officers in Her Majesty's armed forces, are bound by regulations governing the acceptance of outside appointments. The rules ensure that when a Crown servant accepts outside employment no cause for suspicion of impropriety exists. I am satisfied that both Mr. Wood and Mr. Lumb abided by these rules.

  Hercules Fleet
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the target availability of the Hercules fleet required to enable it to meet its budgeted flying hours requirement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Aircraft availability dictates the number of aircraft that are available for tasking to meet commitments on any particular day. This is not linked directly to the budgeted annual flying hours requirement as each aircraft does not necessarily fly the same number of hours.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on budgeted flying hours if his Department proceeds with its plan to offer up for sale up to 10 of the older aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no plan to offer for sale any of the Hercules fleet. An advertisement was placed by my Department in September to assess the potential market for RAF Hercules should they become available for sale.

  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the budgeted flying hours for Hercules C130 fleet in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Freeman
  Budgeted flying hours are as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Hercules air transport aircraft

  33,990

  33,990

  34,058

  Hercules tanker aircraft

  2,901

  2,901

  2,901

  There has been an increase in the number of budgeted flying hours for Hercules air transport aircraft this year to accommodate reservist aircrew flying trials.

  Biological Weapons (Russia)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart concerning the termination of Russian production facilities for biological weapons.

  Mr. Soames
  Following a joint statement signed in September 1992 the Governments of Russia, United Kingdom and United States are conducting discussions with the intention of establishing confidence in Russian compliance with the biological and toxic weapons convention.

  Royal Dockyards
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to his Department in developing the privatisation plans for the royal dockyards.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the period between 18 October 1993, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced our policy towards the future management of the dockyards,Official Report, 18 October 1993, columns 39–41, and 31 October 1994, total identifiable expenditure for work associated with developing and implementing plans for the proposed privatisation of the royal dockyards amounts to some £7.2 million. Given that the current dockyard management contracts are due to expire no later than April 1996, my Department would expect to have incurred in any case costs for work related to any future management arrangements for the royal dockyards.

  Land Mines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his(a) United States, (b) Russian and (c) Italian counterparts concerning the banning of the export and import of anti-personnel land mines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United kingdom is in the forefront of international efforts to establish rules for the responsible use and transfer of antipersonnel land mines. Discussions have been held with a number of states, including the United States, Russia and Italy, in the context of the UN weaponry convention review conference and in respect of other initiatives. Our aim is to establish international arrangements which will command widespread respect and adherence.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Cormorants: Damage to Fisheries
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend to take to reduce damage caused by cormorants to inland fisheries; and whether they will apply to the European Commission to have these birds put on the Pest Schedule.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food already issues licences to kill or take fish-eating birds where there is proven evidence of serious damage to fisheries and where there is no other satisfactory solution. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has advised that research is needed on the effectiveness of licensed controls on fish-eating bird populations, including cormorants, before long-term decisions affecting their protection can be considered. Appropriate research projects are in preparation.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but is he aware that I am not happy with it? It flies in the face of all practical experience to wait until a problem becomes totally uncontrollable before taking any action. Will the ministry consider selective culling of cormorants' nests?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on present, largely circumstantial, evidence, there is no scientific or conservation case for embarking upon a cull of cormorants rather than issuing a licence to kill where there is serious damage. But the Government, as I indicated, intend to take a rigorous scientific approach to the problem of increased predation by those birds. Research will be carried out as quickly as possible to enable the Government to develop strategies for the benefit of fishing interests and to strike an appropriate balance between conservation and management duties.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, if, like me, the Minister had seen cormorants on a fishing expedition floating on the tide past the Palace of Westminster within the past two weeks, would he not agree that the policy of protection because of rarity should be reassessed? Will he undertake to make such a reassessment as urgently as possible?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am delighted to think that there is something worth the cormorants' while that they should be floating down the Thames opposite the Palace. The number of birds in this country is not very great; there are about 19,000 spread along
472
the coast throughout the country. However, the number inland is beginning to rise. It is for that reason that we need to undertake scientific research.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the action we should all like to see him take is a total exclusion zone inside the three-mile high watermark around Great Britain? It is now necessary to eradicate the three major inland breeding colonies which were established in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Essex.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend has to say, but the only evidence that the ministry is likely to take into account before issuing a licence is that serious damage is being done to fishing interests. Unless that can be proved —licences have been granted in the past year for the killing of these birds—no blanket operation can take place.
Lord Moran: My Lords, what have been the results on rivers such as the Tweed where licences to kill cormorants have been issued? In particular, is there evidence that in the case of such culls the serious damage for which the licences were issued has been alleviated?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, during 1993–94, 88 applications for licences were made of which 24 were granted. In the same period, 81 cormorants, out of a licensed potential maximum of 319 birds, were shot. I am afraid that I do not have evidence as to what has happened on the Tweed. If I can find out anything further I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of the 25 seabird species that breed regularly in this country, only four have smaller populations; that experience in Europe has shown that if we open the doors to serious destruction the population may decrease rapidly; and that in a couple of countries they became extinct at one time?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that probably justifies the way the Government are approaching this matter. By issuing licences where serious damage to fisheries is taking place—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has increased the number of licences it has been issuing over the past few years—it is taking care of the serious damage. On the other hand it is leaving the population undisturbed where it is not creating serious damage.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in response to previous questions, he mentioned fisheries and fishing interests? Is he aware of the enormous distress and anxiety which those predators cause to amenity interests in ponds and lakes? Private interests as well as fishing interests need to be looked after.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that, but a balance must be drawn between those who wish to see the birds wiped off the face of the map—and herons, too, I am sure some will say—and the need to give them the protection required under the birds directive and the

473
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There must be an ability to issue licences to control them where they are a nuisance.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I should declare an interest. I have a large pond full of fish. However, I am also enthusiastic about seeing cormorants not only floating down the river but flying over Westminster Bridge. In 1991 only four licences to kill cormorants were issued. Last year, the figure had risen exponentially to 24. Will the Government assure us that without the scientific research which they say they will conduct they will not succumb to the pressures of the fishing industry, fishermen and pond owners and increase the numbers by a further six times this year?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the simple answer to that question is that cormorant numbers have risen slightly, as have the number of them wintering inland rather than on the coast. That may have something to do with their feeding habits out at sea. The number wintering inland on rivers, lakes and reservoirs has increased. That is the basis for increasing the number of licences; it is not merely a case of more licences being issued. The situation is changing. The cormorants have moved inland to other fishing grounds.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply with regard to this problem. Will the research to be undertaken look into the question of whether some of the fisheries are being depleted by water pollution or will it merely concentrate on the number of cormorants?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the research must look at a wide variety of matters. We do not know enough about the underwater biology of the birds or the size, number and condition of the fish they catch. Until we have answers to some of those questions, we shall not know whether the issue of licences to cull on the basis that serious damage is being caused should be amended. Certainly, at present, there is no intention to put them on the Pest Schedule.

War Crimes Prosecutions
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Having regard to the answer given on 25th October 1994 (HL WA 25) in clarification of previous answers given on 27th June 1994 (HL Deb. col. 526) and on 10th October 1994 (HL Deb. col. 708), when investigations by the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit in the 28 cases remaining under investigation since before 27th June 1994 were set in train; and whether consideration ought not to be given as to the introduction of a time-bar against institution of proceedings under the Act.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, there are now 24 cases under active investigation. Of those, 15 were reported by the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry and investigations were started when the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit
474
was established on 28th May 1991. Three other cases commenced on 10th July 1991 and one of each of the remaining cases started on 2nd June 1992, 11th February 1993, 7th April 1993, 8th December 1993, 21st January 1994 and 18th March 1994.
There is no statutory time-bar for laying of charges for murder or manslaughter in this country, and that applies no less when such acts are committed as war crimes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for the Answer that she has given, which shows that 16, if I heard her right, of the men who are now under investigation were under investigation already in 1988 and 1989 when the Hetherington-Chalmers investigations took place. Was it not as a result of that report that the War Crimes Act was introduced to have trials on the evidence on which it then stood?
In view of the fact that those investigations are still continuing and as we are told by the Government that no end may be predicted to them, will they keep an open mind as to whether some form of limitation on proceedings might be introduced?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can confirm that the number is 15 and not 16. Fifteen of the cases that I mentioned were reported by the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry, as the evidence then stood.
We have never had a statute of limitations for crimes of murder in this country. Therefore, we do not regard ourselves at liberty to disregard evidence which has been or may be uncovered. As with any other case, a prosecution would be brought only if there was considered to be sufficient evidence and the prosecution would be in the public interest. Moreover, an accused person can apply for the proceedings against him to be stayed on the grounds of delay or abuse of process.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, will the Minister inform me whether it would be usual on the part of this Government for Ministers in the Home Office to interfere in any way with operational decisions of the Metropolitan Police or with the speed or otherwise of the Crown Prosecution Service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would not only be not usual; it would be improper.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what is the age of the oldest person under investigation; what is the age of the youngest person under investigation; where and when the alleged crimes took place; and whether they all involved murder?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to answer such a detailed question from the Dispatch Box. If I am able to answer it, I shall write to the noble Lord. So long as there are serious crimes to be pursued, it must remain a matter for the police, the Crown Prosecution Service

475
and, at the end of the day, the advice given to the Attorney-General by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is there no time limit at all on the pursuit of people alleged to have committed offences 50 years ago?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is worth recording just how much progress has been made. Indeed, it was recorded by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in regard to a previous Question. In fact, 369 cases had been investigated by the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute in 233 of those cases; 112 persons who were subject to investigation have since died; 24 investigations remain with the police, while nine cases are with the CPS at present. It will be a matter for them—and, at the end of the day, for the Attorney-General—as to whether prosecutions should be brought against those people.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I accept that the noble Baroness may be right in saying that the answer to the noble Lord's suggestion of a time-bar may be that a trial judge can order that a trial should not proceed because of the risk of prejudice resulting from great delay. However, is there not a real risk in this case that judges will proceed on the basis that Parliament could only have passed the Act if Parliament intended the great delay in prosecuting war crimes committed during the last war to be disregarded by the courts?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the matter as to whether the time delay should be regarded or disregarded by the courts must be for the courts. It will be for the police to pursue their normal investigations and for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether the evidence supporting those cases is strong enough for the case to be pursued. However, at the end of the day it will be for the Attorney-General to give a final judgment. It will then be up to the courts to take all of the factors into consideration. They may or may not consider that the time delay is a factor for dismissing the case.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in view of the very satisfactory reply that she has given, does my noble friend the Minister think it appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, not to trouble the House with further proceedings on his Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it must be a matter for my noble friend as to whether he wishes to pursue the Bill. However, I believe that I have today made it very clear that we believe that these are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. We believe that Parliament has had its say on the matter.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addition to the powerful legal arguments against prosecutions, there are also historical reasons? Does she recall that for three years after the war the government of the day obtained the execution and imprisonment of thousands of war criminals; indeed, more than 200 from British courts in Germany alone? However, in 1948, the then government, with the support of all parties, decided
476
that a sufficient lesson had been taught and that war crimes trials should end. How is it possible that this Government should reverse that policy and encourage war crimes trials 46 years after the government of the day, with all-party support, took the other view?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may be so bold, it was Parliament that pronounced, albeit by the use of the Parliament Act, that such cases should be pursued. It must now be a matter for the courts and for the Crown Prosecution Service.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that there was a massive majority for the course of action that the Government are now taking? When murder has been committed, we cannot have civilised living unless we pursue the murderers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, for his remarks. It is a most important principle. To put a time limit on the pursuit of murderers and serious criminals would be a very serious action to take. The noble Viscount is also right to say that there was a massive majority in another place which I believe justified the use of the Parliament Act in the circumstances.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: So be it, my Lords.

Shipbuilding Industry: Future
2.55 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they now view the future of the UK shipbuilding industry.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, all sectors of the economy are equally important in maintaining and increasing our national prosperity. The Government make no judgments about the relative prospects of individual sectors.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does that, or does it not, mean that the Government agree that, as we are an island living by our trade, the existence of an adequate shipbuilding industry is desirable? Secondly, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government have considered the impact upon the north-east economy, already not that strong, of the demise of Swan Hunter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend should not read into my Answer whether or not the Government agree that, as we are an island economy, a shipbuilding industry is desirable. Of course it is desirable. However, we live in an increasingly circumscribed world and there are others who are producing such ships at a time when they are required less than they used to be. In the 1930s, we had 30 per cent. of the world market for merchant

477
ships. However, we now have only 1 per cent. It is our desire that our shipbuilding industry should be competitive. To that end, we have complied with the OECD's agreement which requires the elimination of subsidies, establishes an anti-dumping code and controls credit terms. Altogether, that is a good deal for the United Kingdom. We hope that our shipbuilding industry will be able to benefit from it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the shipbuilding industry is rather a special case, bearing in mind that our history as a seafaring nation shows that we have only survived on the basis of being able to build ships and have men to sail in them when there has been a necessity to defend the realm? In today's very uncertain world, are we not in a most dangerous situation where we are almost down to nil capacity? What will happen if—God forbid!—war breaks out again? Who will we turn to on such an occasion to build ships for us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. However, we are living in a competitive world. There is no way in which a government can subsidise an industry fairly when such action would put at risk other organisations which might also be competing. In fact, we do participate in some form of subsidy which was given by the Seventh European Community Directive. That enables our shipbuilding industry to be subsidised where it is subject to unfair competition from non-European Union countries. On the whole, we must recognise the fact that all our industries have to compete in the world market. We hope that they will do so.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that, far from fading away, carriage by sea is still our third largest invisible export?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is entirely right in her observation, but I would need to do a little checking before I could say that with great certainty. However, I have no doubt that my noble friend must be correct.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the Minister recall that his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade referred not long ago to intervening before breakfast, luncheon and dinner to save British industry? In the light of what has happened to the British shipbuilding industry and, more generally, what has been said about British industry, can the noble Earl interpret what his right honourable friend said?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that it is perfectly simple. My right honourable friend will intervene on behalf of British industry and he has done so in agreeing with the OECD agreement that there should not be anti-dumping—at the moment it can be construed that there is; that there should be credit terms which are controlled; and that there should be the elimination of subsidies. But the fact is that there are some parts of the world, particularly in the Far East, where there have been considerable increases in
478
capacity. Korea has said that it will double its capacity. That is fine provided that it does not dump its ships on the world market.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a related question touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton? Does the Minister see any prospect of employment for thousands of shipyard workers on Tyneside who are eager to use their skills?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, but there is no advantage in keeping alive an industry which is unable to compete—if there is such an industry—simply by virtue of trying to create jobs. We have to create jobs in that area, if that is necessary, which will enable people to provide goods and services which are required, and without subsidy. That is something which the Government have been keen on doing and we have been successful in obtaining considerable investment in the north east from other countries.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, may I ask the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am very much in the hands of the House. I am aware that we have one more Question and six more minutes or under in which to ask it. I wonder whether your Lordships would be prepared for the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to wrap this up and for us to move on to the next Question.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend ask his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to take another careful look at this, particularly as there is a danger of making these judgments on a very short-term basis? The shipbuilding industry raises very long-term problems and I hope that my noble friend will look at it in that light.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern that shipbuilding is a long-term business. He is perfectly right; it is. However, I suggest to him that it is impossible to keep going by artificial subsidy a number of businesses which one may feel are in the long-term interest, even if in the short term they are unable to be viable. Our concern is that they should be viable. There is a great deal of evidence to show that those shipbuilding industries which are now involved with shipbuilding have done a great deal to make themselves viable.

War Pensioners
3.3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are consulting the Royal British Legion about the continuing care of servicemen and women wounded in the two world wars.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords,

479
as the Minister with special responsibility for war pensioners, I meet regularly with officers of the Royal British Legion and other ex-service organisations to discuss the needs of disabled ex-servicemen and women wounded in the two world wars and since.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. But is he aware, and does he recall, that quite a number of years ago wounded ex-servicemen and women, irrespective of whether they were wounded in the mind or in the body, were given preferential treatment in the NHS? That seemed the right thing to do at the time. It now appears that that priority, and the promise that was given, are dwindling away, and that the older ex-servicemen and women who now need treatment most of all are no longer entitled to that privilege.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has raised a question that concerns us. I must correct the final point that he made. The ex-servicemen and women to whom he referred are still entitled to the priority treatment which was agreed all those years ago, whether it is given in hospital or through family health services and their GP or wherever. We realise that, with the passage of time and with new doctors and nurses entering the profession, that obligation may be forgotten. We frequently remind the professions of the situation by way of circular. Earlier this year my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie both sent circulars to the medical professions and the related professions in England, Wales and Scotland reminding them of this obligation. I am happy that the noble Lord has given me the opportunity to underline it here again today.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend give an estimate of the number of wounded from World War I who are still alive as distinct from World War I veterans who were not wounded but who now suffer from disabilities which arise from and are aggravated by old age? Both categories should, of course, receive the best of care. I should make clear that I was not myself wounded in World War I but in World War II.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I know of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy's interest in this matter. I looked into this matter when I visited the war pensions agency in Blackpool recently. I believe, from what I remember, that there are about 600 World War I disablement pensioners on our books, so to speak. However, I am afraid I cannot answer my noble friend's question as regards how many have come on the books in recent years due to their injuries which perhaps did not seem so serious when they were younger or middle-aged but which are proving to be a problem in old age. That is certainly a real problem both for World War I and World War II veterans.
Lord Richard: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the concerns of the Royal British Legion in this area is the delay that is taking place before the issue of whether someone is entitled to a war pension comes before an independent tribunal? Can he confirm that that
480
delay is now approximately 18 months? Can he tell us how many such cases are currently outstanding, and can he tell us the length of time being taken to settle each case? As he is the Minister who is personally responsible for this, we are grateful that he is in a position to answer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not have a photographic memory and I am afraid that I do not carry those detailed statistics in my head. If the noble Lord wishes me to answer those questions, I am happy to do so if he tables specific Questions. I can then come armed with information. The whole question of studying an application for a war disablement pension is taken very seriously and it involves the records held by the MoD. It is quite a long business and we try to make it as short as possible, but consistent with giving the applicant the fairest treatment possible.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, may I on behalf of the War Widows Association—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think our 30 minutes are up.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, on behalf of the War Widows Association—
Noble Lords: Order!

Petition: Christian Ethics
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I beg to present a petition from Dr. Alan Kerbey which prays that this House will take note of the Crusaders' declaration, the terms of which are contained in this petition and which has been signed by over 6,700 people. Dr. Alan Kerbey further prays that the House of Lords might take action so that society today does not become a post-Christian society characterised by disorder and moral breakdown.
Petition presented.

Appointed Bodies (Financial Penalties) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the recovery of sums from members of appointed public bodies in circumstances of unlawful expenditure or improper accounting and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Dean of Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

481
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

V. Craigavon,

L. Gallacher,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

V. Oxfuird,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this Motion is generally passed on the nod; but in view of what happened last Session, and in view of continued efforts to bypass the procedure of your Lordships' House and to suspend its Standing Orders, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say a word or two.
The hybrid instrument procedure is itself the result of attempts to bypass the hybrid Bills procedure. As your Lordships are well aware, certain Bills which are generally speaking Public Bills, in other words affecting the public generally, occasionally include provisions which affect adversely particular individuals or groups of individuals in contradistinction to the public generally. They are examined by the independent examiners of Bills, who certify such measures as hybrid. They then go before the hybrid Bill committees of each House.
That procedure is highly inconvenient to administrators. One ought to understand their concern. Administrators generally are concerned with laying down general rules which will do justice in the generality of cases.
Private interests and rights are apt to be of considerably less concern, and indeed may sometimes be felt to stand in the way of speedy and orderly administration. Therefore, departments faced with the inconvenience of the hybrid Bill procedure ingeniously decided to put the hybrid provisions —namely, those which affected adversely individuals and bodies—not into the Bill itself but into subordinate legislation under the Bill, thereby escaping the hybrid Bill procedure.
In 1924 your Lordships' House alone countered that by setting up the hybrid instruments procedure whereby a hybrid instrument—one adversely affecting individuals or groups of individuals—would be considered and grievances heard. That procedure was considered nearly 50 years later by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation under the chairmanship of the late Lord Brooke of Cumnor. The Committee found that the procedure was valuable and that there was nearly 50 years' of proof of its value in safeguarding the interests of individuals who might be adversely affected by delegated legislation. The Committee recommended that it should continue. It also recommended that the procedure should be extended to the other place, but that has not yet been found possible.
That being so, departments tried to get round the hybrid instrument procedure as well. They did that by inserting into Bills the stipulation that the regulation
482
should not be subject to the hybrid instrument procedure, notwithstanding the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House.
Your Lordships will remember that matters came to a crunch with the Railways Bill of two Sessions ago. That Bill included a schedule dealing with railway pensions. Railway pensions were statutory contracts between the Minister and the pensioners, the railway servants. That Bill took the power for the Minister, in effect, to re-write those contracts. If ever there was a case for the Hybrid Instruments Committee it was that. Nevertheless, the Bill proceeded to try to eliminate the hybrid instruments procedure of your Lordships' House. That was challenged, and my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton moved an amendment to eliminate that provision which interfered with the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. The Government won the Division by one vote, according to the tellers although according to the Division Clerk there was an even division of votes. Your Lordships will remember that Disraeli said that a majority is the best repartee. However, your Lordships may think that a government majority of one in your Lordships' House is not particularly brilliant repartee.
The matter was raised again at the beginning of the last Session. Also in the last Session, your Lordships' Procedure Committee considered hybrid instruments procedure. It quoted what was said by the Brooke Committee, endorsed it and recommended that the procedure should continue. Notwithstanding that recommendation, in two Bills last Session there were renewed attempts to try to do away with it. One was the Local Government (Wales) Bill and the other was the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. In the case of the Welsh Bill the Minister agreed with an amendment which allowed the provision to be eliminated. So far as concerns the English police Bill, the Minister seemed sympathetic. He took an amendment away to consider it, but in the end turned it down.
That is how the matter stands now. In effect, it comes to this. It is idle to accede to this Motion and to go to the trouble of setting up the Hybrid Instruments Committee if departments are allowed to interfere in the measures they put forward in order to eliminate the procedure.
I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—because I think that this is more a matter for him than for the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees—will be able to assure your Lordships that the departments of the Government will be instructed, if they have not already been, that they should not make any further attempt to interfere with the procedures of your Lordships' House in this regard except in an overwhelming case. That case will always be limited, as the Brooke Committee suggested, to where there is an alternative method of considering the grievance of the private citizen whose rights are being invaded.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I agree totally with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just said. I should like to add one observation. I suggest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that it goes far beyond the principles of the comity that

483
should exist between the two Houses of Parliament that the other House should present to us for our consideration Bills in which it has deliberately included clauses designed to prevent this House from operating its own Standing Orders.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly before the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees answers the remarks of the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord.
In principle, it is always open to your Lordships to examine all questions of procedure and all questions of legislation that are laid before the House. That would include the question of hybrid Bills and hybrid instruments. Equally, I point out to your Lordships that it would perhaps not be desirable to go through hybridity procedures merely for the sake of doing so where it was the opinion of your Lordships' House that that was not necessary. Indeed, in terms of subsidiary legislation, we have a very good example before us in the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Rippon, and indeed the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, for the examination of secondary legislation under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act.
I listened with very great attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. I always listen to the noble and learned Lord. Indeed I have been warned that if I do not I shall live to repent it. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that given the safeguards that already exist and the clear watchdog element who flourish so sensibly in your Lordships' House, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that hybrid instruments of one kind or another will not be put before your Lordships for consideration in the coming Session. I note what the noble and learned Lord has taken the opportunity to say on the Motion. I have no doubt, however, that we should proceed to appoint the committee as usual. If we did not, the noble and learned Lord might be even more upset with me than he possibly already is.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his helpful intervention. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for their interventions. In particular I thank the noble and learned Lord for having given notice that he proposed to raise the matter. Even with that notice, I am afraid that I am not in a position to match the entertaining historical allusions of the noble and learned Lord.
So far as concerns my own responsibilities, the Hybrid Instruments Committee needs to be re-appointed because a large number of Acts on the statute book contain powers to make statutory instruments which may be and, in some cases are bound to be, hybrid. For example, as the noble and learned Lord will know, orders establishing urban development areas, and urban development corporations, made under Section 134 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 are inevitably hybrid.
Indeed, I have reason to believe that later this very week I shall be reporting to the House as hybrid two instruments of which my counsel has had advance notice. Therefore the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of
484
Glaisdale, agrees, I am sure, that the Hybrid Instruments Committee should be re-appointed for this Session. I beg to move.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the Chairman of Committees sits down. He said that he would be reporting two hybrid instruments, I believe, this week. What powers would be left to this Chamber if the committee declares a decision on any of those hybrid instruments? Will any power still be vested in your Lordships' Chamber to deal with those instruments?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if the Motion is agreed to this afternoon, the Hybrid Instruments Committee will be set up. It will then have an opportunity to consider the submissions about the two instruments which I have reason to believe will be reported upon. Then, of course, as always in subsequent proceedings it is a matter for the ultimate decision of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
3.23 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider personal bills and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

L. Hooson,

B. Seccombe,

L. Templeman,

L. Wilberforce.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of CommitteesMy Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee—

V. Falkland,

L. Gallacher,

V. Hood,

L. Renton,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Thurlow,

L. Wade of Chorlton.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I must declare an interest as both a tenant and an owner occupier of agricultural land.
It is with more than the usual nervousness that I rise to open the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon. That is not, I hasten to say, because I lack confidence in any way in the worthwhile Bill which I shall be commending to your Lordships. Rather, it is because I am conscious of the particular wealth of expertise on this subject, even more than on many others, which exists among noble Lords from all sides of the House who will follow me in the debate. I therefore hope that they will bear with me if, in describing the background to the Bill, I appear to be guilty of oversimplifying or omitting some important points.
The present tangle of agricultural holdings legislation has grown up largely over the last 120 years or so. Before then the relationship between the landlord and tenant of agricultural land was a much simpler one, governed principally by the terms of the tenancy agreement itself. In the middle of the last century, freedom of contract was held in high esteem, both in society and in legal circles. For example, in a case before the Court of Appeal in 1875 the Master of the Rolls made the following pronouncement:
"If there is one thing which more than any other public policy requires, it is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting and that their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by courts of justice".
However, from that time onwards a further argument began to be put forward; namely, that in order for freedom of contract to work satisfactorily, there must be a genuinely free and open market in which there was equality of bargaining power. In the case of the economic relationship between landlord and tenant, it was pointed out that the market was not entirely free because the supply of land could not expand rapidly in response to demand. Nor was there usually an equality of bargaining power, because the landlord's purse was generally deeper and his access to advice much readier than the tenant's. It was partly in order to address those perceived problems that the law, in the shape of the agricultural holdings legislation, began to intervene to modify the freedom of contract between landlord and tenant and was thereafter added to at regular intervals for the next 100 years.
Before the first Agricultural Holdings Act in 1875, the relations between the parties were governed principally by common law, which meant that the terms of the tenancy agreement were given effect but that where these were insufficient the gap would be filled by referring to local custom or by applying case law developed by the courts. However, because the tenant's legal position was perceived by Parliament to be somewhat precarious, there began a long process of statutory intervention to improve it.
486
Since 1875 there have been over 20 pieces of primary legislation which have affected or modified the operation of the agreement reached between an agricultural landlord and his tenant. Of those, the most important provisions have related to security of tenure. In particular, the Agriculture Act 1947 was passed at a time when food rationing was still in existence and Parliament regarded it as essential that the level of production of our farms should be improved. Thus it was that in that year a major change in security of tenure was introduced. The landlord's notice to quit was made subject to consent being given by the Minister. That was subsequently amended to require consent by the agricultural land tribunal. The effect of the change in reality was to give all tenant farmers, who farmed their land efficiently, complete security of tenure save in most exceptional circumstances. At the time it was believed that that would contribute to improving agricultural output.
In relation to security of tenure, the zenith—or perhaps the nadir—of the whole process was reached with the passage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. This provided security of tenure for two further generations of successors to an existing tenant, provided that they were close relatives who could prove themselves eligible and suitable to take on the tenancy. By taking the land out of the landlord's control for three generations, this went almost as far as it was possible to go in the direction of security short of actually transferring the title from the landlord to the tenant. These succession provisions were subsequently repealed in 1984 in relation to new tenancies, but the effective lifetime security of tenure first conferred by the 1947 Act still applies, having been carried through into subsequent legislation, most recently the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
One argument advanced in favour of security of tenure is that tenant farmers are encouraged to put their energy and resources into the land by the knowledge that only in very special circumstances can they lose their occupancy. However, in parallel with the movement over the last century or so from complete freedom of contract to virtually complete security of tenure, there has occurred an equally massive shift in the pattern of agricultural land ownership and tenure. The percentage of land that is rented fell from about 90 per cent. at the turn of the century to less than 35 per cent. in 1993. The tenanted sector has thus been in chronic decline for several decades, though the introduction of security of tenure undoubtedly hastened this trend.
Although one-third of agricultural land is still rented, much of this is now rented on short-term arrangements such as Gladstone v. Bower tenancies which do not have security of tenure. Thus the proportion of land that is let on protected tenancies is small and diminishing, and where such tenancies terminate it is known that only about 10 per cent. of landlords choose to re-let on a similar basis.
There is broad agreement within the industry on the reasons for this decline. Principal among them is the maze of restrictive tenancy legislation, and the security of tenure provisions in particular. These represent a

487
major disincentive to any landowners who might otherwise consider letting their land. The supply of new full tenancies has slowed to the merest trickle, while the existing stock continues to ebb away. What was a prolonged dry spell is now a definite drought.
We must ask ourselves: does this matter? In order to answer that question, I should like, with permission, to give two quotations. First,
"Many people believe that agriculture, like any other industry, needs a continuous infusion of 'new blood' from outside the industry to provide a fresh and innovative outlook, energy and drive".
Secondly,
"Letting represents a relatively low-cost route into the industry and one which prevents agriculture becoming a closed shop. A healthy let sector allows good young farmers to extend and develop their potential, with benefits for the industry as a whole".
Wise words indeed! They are taken from the report of the committee of inquiry into the acquisition and occupancy of agricultural land, published a full 15 years ago. And they remain just as true today. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who was chairman of the committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who was a member of it, still subscribe to them.
Almost everyone in the industry—except for a few die-hards who seem impervious to reason and oblivious to the evidence—has come to see that corrective action has to be taken, and soon. Landowners, tenants, young farmers, land agents, valuers and others connected with the industry have all been pressing upon us the need for legislation. And last December, an even more remarkable thing happened: they all agreed on what changes were needed to the present system.
It is now 11 years since we made the last substantive changes to agricultural tenancy law. The Second Reading debate of the Agricultural Holdings Bill in your Lordships' House took place on 8th November 1983. There were a number of noble Lords on that occasion who criticised the Bill for not going far enough to achieve the desired increase in new lettings. I fear that we must all now concede that they were right. With hindsight we can all see—or at least I believe most of us can—that such a heavily regulatory system as is provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act will not create the right climate for landowners to be encouraged to offer more land for letting. That is one reason why today we are debating a much more streamlined Bill which offers a simpler framework allowing room for the parties to reach sensible agreements between themselves.
Perhaps your Lordships will hear later in today's debate whether the party responsible for introducing, with retrospective effect, the statutory succession provisions in 1976 now acknowledges the damage that was then done to the agricultural tenanted sector. If not, I am sure that there are many in your Lordships' House and elsewhere who would be more than willing to tell it. I would like to believe that members of that party now understand—as the industry itself has come to do—that reform is the key to revitalising the tenanted sector. Yet the Opposition spokesman on agriculture in another place has made clear that Labour will oppose this Bill because it ends security of tenure for tenant farmers. Unless we take action there will be no tenant farmers
488
left. It is this reform that we are being urged from all sides of the industry to implement in order to offer hope to aspiring tenants and to offer prospects to the young people who are so important as the source of new ideas, new techniques and new perspectives. Is this not an objective which noble Lords opposite can wholeheartedly share? I very much hope so.
The Government do not plan to repeat the mistake of the Labour Party in 1976 by legislating with retrospective effect. Existing tenancies will be unaffected by the new legislation which will to agricultural tenancies granted after it comes into force.
I want now to pick out some of the main points in the Bill and describe them in more detail. Clause 1 introduces and defines the concept of farm business tenancies, which is how the new tenancies will be known. The clause sets out the conditions that a tenancy must meet in order to come within the ambit of the Bill. In all cases, at least part of the land comprised in the tenancy must be farmed for the purposes of a trade or business throughout the life of the tenancy. This is a minimum test, known as the business conditions, which all farm business tenancies must satisfy. Besides that, the tenancy must meet one of two alternative conditions. The first alternative is that the parties must have exchanged notices, before the tenancy is granted, confirming their intention that the tenancy is to be and will remain a farm business tenancy; also, the tenancy must be primarily or wholly agricultural in character at the beginning of the tenancy. If this is the case, the tenancy will remain a farm business tenancy as long as the business condition is met. The effect will be to allow much more flexibility for tenants, with the permission of their landlords, to extend their enterprises into non-agricultural areas without this calling into question the nature of the tenancy. In this way, diversification will be made easier and the rural economy as a whole will benefit.
The alternative scenario is where the parties have not exchanged notices before the grant of the tenancy. In those cases, the test, if the status of the tenancy is brought into question, will be whether the character of the tenancy is primarily or wholly agricultural. The test is described in Clause 1(3). In such cases there is, of course, a risk that any significant changes in the character of the tenancy could take it outside the scope of the Bill. For that reason, we would expect that most landlords and tenants will wish to exchange notices beforehand in the interests of certainty. But we have to cater for the situation in which, either deliberately or accidentally, they do not do so.
Clause 2 provides that a tenancy cannot be subject to the new legislation if it was granted before the Bill comes into force. Clause 4, which might be described as a mirror image of that provision, makes clear that the Agicrultural Holdings Act 1986 does not apply to new tenancies granted after the Bill comes in to force. Tenancies created under the statutory succession provisions of the 1986 Act will continue to be subject to that Act.

489
Clauses 5 to 7 concern the provisions for giving of written notice when either party wishes to end a tenancy. Under the Bill, landlords and tenants will be free to agree how long a tenancy should last. This is a major change from the present legislation, which gives tenants virtual lifetime security of tenure. This provision of the Bill is the key to encouraging more letting of land. It is also the focus of most criticism from those who are opposed to reform. But I am afraid the logic of this opposition defeats me. I can only conclude that those concerned cannot understand that the letting of land is a wholly voluntary activity on the part of the landlord. The landlord will let land only if he is convinced it is in his best interest to do so. We have to create the right conditions for this. The most important of these is to allow the parties freedom to agree on the length of term for their own tenancies. I am encouraged that there is now a broad consensus on this point within the industry as a whole.
For tenancies of a fixed term of more than two years, at least one year's notice but less than two years' notice is required to be given when either party wishes the tenancy to end on the agreed date. Otherwise, the tenancy continues as a tenancy from year to year. The same period of notice is required to end a tenancy from year to year. Unlike the present legislation, there will be no grounds on which tenancies can be terminated with shorter periods of notice except when both sides agree terms for the surrender of the tenancy. Also, there will in future be no grounds for issuing notices to terminate the tenancy before the agreed date or to recover possession of part of the holding unless the tenancy agreement contains provisions which allow for the exercise of such options. Even in such cases, the mandatory period of notice will still be at least 12 months. Tenancies which are for fixed terms of two years or less and periodic tenancies which run for periods of less than a year are not covered by these provisions and are therefore subject to common law rules.
Clause 8 of the Bill sets out the tenant's right to remove fixtures and buildings, subject to certain conditions. This represents a simpler version of the corresponding provision in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
Part II of the Bill contains provisions on rent. Again, those will give parties more freedom than the present legislation to agree their own provisions both in relation to the level of rent and in relation to the frequency of rent reviews. On the level of rent, the parties will be able to agree that the rent should be fixed for the whole of the tenancy by stating explicitly that there will be no rent reviews at all. Alternatively, they will be able to agree that the rent should be adjusted according to some objective criterion. In both cases, the parties will be clear from the outset as to the intended result. If they do not agree such arrangements, they will be able to provide for rent reviews at a frequency of their own choosing. And if they make no such provision, either party will be able to demand a rent review every three years.
490
An important point concerns the method of determining rent at a review. When a review takes place, the parties may of course agree on the new level of rent between themselves. Alternatively, they may agree the basis on which it is to be set and jointly ask a third party to determine it for them. However, if the question is referred to an arbitrator then the Bill requires that he must set the new rent on an open market basis. This basis is described in more detail in Clause 13.
Part III contains mandatory provisions on compensation for tenants' improvements. The definition of an improvement is a general one which goes somewhat wider than that in the present legislation. Broadly speaking, a tenant's improvement is defined as any physical improvement made on the holding or any intangible advantage obtained for the holding by the tenant which is capable of increasing the value of the holding. This will allow the tenant to be compensated when he has contributed to securing intangible advantages, which will include planning permission, for example, and other items, some of which may not yet have been thought of. Provided that the landlord's written consent has been obtained for the making of improvements, the landlord will be required to pay full compensation at the end of the tenancy for all improvements remaining attached to the holding that have been provided by the tenant through his own effort or at his own expense. Unlike the present legislation, these provisions will override any agreement to the contrary and so there will be no scope for the value of the compensation to be written down. Also, a tenant will be able to demand arbitration if the landlord refuses consent for an improvement or if there is disagreement after the end of the tenancy on the amount of compensation to be paid.
In Part IV of the Bill, Clauses 28 to 30 set out the procedure to be followed for resolution of disputes arising under the Bill or under the terms of a farm business tenancy. There are three main points to note about these provisions: first, they provide unilateral access to independent arbitration, which will guarantee a simpler and cheaper alternative to the lengthy procedures of the courts. Secondly, they leave room for the parties to make use of some alternative disputes resolution procedure of their own choosing, if they wish. Thirdly, the arbitration procedures to be used will be those of the Arbitration Act 1950, which are the procedures used in other sectors and which are widely regarded as less cumbersome than those of the present agricultural holdings legislation.
The remainder of Part IV contains various provisions on a number of matters, of which I shall only mention that the proposed commencement date for the Bill is 1st September 1995.
I trust that this brief explanation of the main points of the Bill will be sufficient to introduce today's debate. In concluding, I should like to make clear that this is not a measure that has been dreamt up overnight by the Government and foisted on an unwilling industry. We began consultation on possible reform nearly four years ago, and we have developed these proposals in close consultation with the industry. It is true that the resulting package is fully consistent with wider government

491
policies in terms of deregulation, greater market orientation, as well as with giving individuals greater freedom to manage their own affairs and the responsibility that goes with it. But the reason that we are bringing forward this Bill is not primarily a political or a philosophical one: it is that there is general agreement that action to boost the tenanted sector is long overdue, and this is the best way that we and others have identified in which to do that.
We regard it as of the utmost importance that the package of reforms contained in the Bill is fully supported by the main agricultural organisations representing both tenants and landlords. The changes that it will bring about will help to create opportunities, encourage investment and benefit the rural economy. By giving British agriculture an infusion of new blood, it will put it in a stronger position to adapt to future changes. With those aims in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Howe.)
3.48 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his usual lucid explanation of what is a fairly technical Bill; and say from these Benches how much we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough. Also, like the Minister, I declare an interest as the owner-occupier and tenant of agricultural land. I thank the Minister for confirming that, as in so much else that this Government do, they are taking a giant leap forward with complete freedom of contract into the mid-19th century.
I say at once that this is a very important Bill so far as agriculture is concerned. Opportunities to review agricultural holdings legislation do not arise very frequently. It is therefore very important that we make sure that the Bill meets a genuine need and will result in an improvement on the present situation.
It is a fact on which we can all agree that there is a marked decline in the let sector of agricultural land. I entirely understand how the figure of 35 per cent. that was quoted by the Minister for the amount of rented farmland is arrived at. But I have always suspected that the true figure is considerably less than 35 per cent. The recent RICS survey New Farms and Land, 1995–1997 estimates a figure of 27 per cent. for land in England and Wales, let on a full agricultural tenancy with no share in ownership. But even that figure may overstate the position as I believe that it includes what I would describe as arranged tenancies; for example, if land is let to a partnership where the landlord is effectively a partner, so that termination of the partnership ends the tenancy, even though the landlord in that partnership may be acting through a company or whatever. At a guess, it may be that the true figure for land let on a fully secure lifetime tenancy at an arm's length rent and with no aspect of arrangement is perhaps not much more than 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of farmland in England and Wales.
It is generally agreed that the decline of the let sector has not been good for farming and steps should therefore be taken to stop the decline and, if possible,
492
reverse it. It is also felt that the traditional division between landlords' and tenants' capital and their responsibilities has worked well for farming and that, if farming is to have the new blood that it needs, there must be a way in that does not require substantial investment in land. I happen to believe that the whole proposition is debatable. I am sure that the arguments both for and against will be fully rehearsed as we go through the Bill.
The Labour Party has a good record on improving the situation for tenants. As the Minister said, the 1947 and 1948 Acts gave farm tenants security of tenure for the first time and the 1976 Act provided for succession of tenancies. The Conservative Party, for entirely understandable, historical reasons—which is a polite way of saying that most landlords vote Conservative—has tended to move in the opposite direction. The 1984 Act ended tenancy succession and the Bill that we are considering effectively ends the lifetime security of tenure for all lettings after 1st September 1995, except for the very special and what I suggest are likely to be the very rare cases, where the landlord agrees to such a provision in the farm business tenancy.
We therefore looked at this Bill with great care and regretfully concluded that it will not provide the security of tenure for tenants that we should like to see. I am sure your Lordships will agree that a tenanted farm is not just a source of income; it is a home for the farmer and his family. We would all agree that the family farm has an important role to play in the stability of our rural structure. We should like to see a Bill that would encourage that. I have to say that in our view this Bill does not do so.
Your Lordships will also be aware of the old saying, "Live as though you are going to die tomorrow; farm as though you are going to live for ever". In other words, have a care for the land and leave it in good heart. Model tenancy agreements, with which we are all familiar, include provisions relating to good husbandry. The RICS survey, to which I referred earlier, showed that the agents surveyed confirmed that the great majority of units that they expected to let within the first two years of the legislation becoming operational would be on five-year agreements. That is short-termism with a vengeance and shorter than some agricultural rotations.
Much has been made of the fact—indeed, the Minister mentioned it—that the industry, however defined, has agreed to these proposals. The working party of the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the Tenant Farmers' Association and the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs have worked hard. They are to be congratulated on that. Indeed, knowing many of them, as I do, as friends and colleagues, I am sorry that we cannot give them the unequivocal support from these Benches that they would like. They will be aware that support for their views is not unanimous within the industry.
A number of tenant farmers' action groups have expressed their concern. The Farmers' Union of Wales, for example, is strongly opposed. I am sure that my noble friends Lord Cledwyn and Lord Prys-Davies, will deal adequately with those matters when they come to

493
speak. At this point, I must say that there is considerable attraction in the concept of retirement tenancies as proposed by the Farmers' Union of Wales.
It is quite clear that landlords like the proposals in the Bill. Anything which shortens tenure increases the potential value of their land. The CLA publication Land Statistics, 1993 shows that the average price of vacant possession land sold in England in 1993 was between £1,400 and £1,500 per acre. The average sale price of let land in the same period was about £900 per acre.
It is, and has been for a long time, a feature of the agricultural land market in the UK that vacant land has always been worth more than let land, usually at least 50 per cent. more. It is interesting that, on the other hand, a commercial property let on a long lease on a good covenant is worth more than a vacant property. Most land agents with whom I have discussed the matter are of the view that land let on a good covenant on a farm business tenancy for five to 10 years, reverting to the owner at the end of the tenancy, will have a value of not much less than vacant possession value. That may have been a factor at the back of the CLA's mind when it supported the proposals.
The other factor which cannot be ignored in the whole matter is taxation. Much has been made of the fact that current inheritance tax rules militate against the letting of land. That is probably so. In the Labour Party we have already made it clear that we are prepared to consider the possibility of equalising inheritance tax relief between let land and owner-occupied land, but only in a way which would be financially neutral to the Treasury; in other words, this is a matter for consultation and is not a commitment. If we were to do that—if any government were to do it—and use scarce fiscal resources to provide taxation relief for the owners of let land, it seems to me to be entirely reasonable that those owners should show their commitment to the business of letting land by having proper tenancies with long tenure.
The Minister has already given the House a full explanation of the Bill so that I shall merely indicate those areas where we feel that it needs amending either because of faulty or ambiguous drafting, or as a result of the omission of important items. I suppose that the biggest surprise in the Bill is that it is silent about the criteria to be met in drafting a farm business tenancy. Beyond definition, rent review, notice to quit and compensation, the Bill gives no direction regarding those matters which a modern agricultural tenancy should include. So far as I can see, these new farm business tenancy agreements do not even have to be in writing. There is no mention of quotas or set-aside—two matters which are central in considering the tenure of agricultural land nowadays. We shall be tabling amendments to set out the criteria which must be met if a tenancy is to be agreed under the Bill.
Another matter that I should like to see in the Bill in relation to the farm business tenancy, particularly if there are to be such short-term arrangements, is some requirement on both landlord and tenant to agree what happens to the housing of the tenant at the end of the short tenancy. As I said, a tenanted farm is not just a business, it is also a home for a family.
494
I have also been advised that there is a technical flaw in the drafting of the Bill, so that in certain circumstances an existing tenant with full security could inadvertently lose that security. I believe that this is a technical matter. I am sure that it was not the intention of the Government. We shall be discussing the matter with the Minister and tabling amendments to redress the situation, if indeed it exists.
There is no mention in the Bill of conservation or of good husbandry. Again, we shall address that omission either on the face of the Bill, or perhaps by proposing a code of practice or an obligation on the Government to provide guidance on these and related matters.
I entirely understand the free market ideology with which the Government approach this matter. I understand and expect that the Government's reply to all these observations will be that under freedom of contract the landlord and tenant can agree more or less what they like. If the scales were equal between landlord and tenant, that might be so; but they are not. We believe that it is important to ensure that tenants receive proper protection under statute if they enter into a farm business tenancy.
The feature of the Bill which does meet with our full approval is the proposal dealing with compensation for tenants' improvements. For too long tenants have been at a great disadvantage when it came to dealing with compensation for improvements. The Bill puts that right for new farm business tenancies. It would be nice to think that we could use the Bill to end the injustices to existing tenants and we may wish to investigate that matter when we consider the Bill in detail.
To conclude, I am fully aware that the Bill is seen by many in the agricultural industry as a step forward. I am not sure that all those involved have thought the matter through as they should. In their anxiety to improve on the existing situation they have acquiesced in the introduction of a new system of letting which is likely to do little more than regularise the present mish-mash of share farming, contract fanning, and the Gladstone v. Bower arrangements mentioned by the Minister when he introduced the Bill.
There are many areas which we shall need to consider. I referred to the RICS survey, which indicates the amount of land that agents may be prepared to let, largely from the existing sector, in the first two years. But the great imponderable is the amount of land that will be offered for farm business tenancies after 1st September 1995 from the owner-occupied sector, which may wish to take advantage of the new arrangements.
I believe that the amount of land offered will be much less than the Government expect unless we can amend the Bill either here or in another place to make letting more attractive to both landlord and tenant. I can see the attractions for the landlord in the proposals in the Bill. But how many current owner-occupiers will be encouraged to let their land as a result of the Bill? Will they face a halving in their relief from inheritance tax? How many current contracting or share farming agreements will be regularised as a result of the Bill? They will not be new lettings, but merely a reordering of the existing situation. The key question is: how many new lettings will be encouraged with full and good

495
security of tenure for farm tenants under the provisions of the Bill? We do not believe that there will be nearly as much land as the Government and others expect.
It is fair to say that this House is particularly well equipped to examine this Bill and improve it. We shall certainly do our best from these Benches to play a full part in that process.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am pinch-hitting today for my noble friend Lord Mackie who is unavoidably away on parliamentary duties in Paris, which I slightly regret but I bet he does not. And I feel that to a certain extent speaking on this Bill is where I came in, for my father was quite a large landowner—applying the adjective to both nouns—and I well remember growing up during the war when there was a great deal of discussion about tenants. For instance, how satisfactory the good ones were; how one got rid of unsatisfactory ones, and how to take farms in hand when one wished to farm one's own land—a prospect which had suddenly become attractive as opposed to 10 years before in the 1930s and as opposed, to a certain extent, to today.
It is in that context that I wish to extend a warm welcome to the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, in his maiden speech. His grandfather and my father were close friends towards the latter parts of their lives and blood from the Brocklesby hounds ran strongly in the pack which my father bred in Kildare.
When I read agriculture at Oxford, most of those taking an agricultural degree intended to farm, if they possibly could —this was the period immediately after the war—the land owned by their fathers and were faced with various problems as a result.
There has always been a power struggle between landlords and tenants. In spite of my background, my sympathies have always been on the side of the tenants because, unlike the Thatcherite farmer featured so prominently in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, I recognise a lot of truth in the aphorism that "property is theft". I believe that landowners themselves are merely tenants, a truth which the best of them would acknowledge. But I am delighted that we have reached a point where we have a Bill which is agreed by most of the major interested parties. I know that there is some opposition, and I look forward to hearing of the improvements which the Labour Party will put forward during the course of the Bill and in the Committee stage of which we shall play our full part. I look forward also to hearing about the attitude of the Welsh farmers' union, about which my noble friend Lord Geraint—who is considerably more qualified than I to speak on this matter—will have something to say when he winds up.
My party takes the same view as I do in welcoming the Bill. It said in a recently published issue of A Living Countryside,
"The tenanted farm sector must be retained not just as a route into farming for those with limited capital, but also as an essential option in a mixed farming economy".
The only sad but I suppose inevitable thing is that the Act will only apply to new tenancies and will take an unconscionable time to work through the system. It is
496
surely right that in an area where there is no longer an excessive power on either side of the bargaining counter, both sides should be free to bargain, and one advantage that we are likely to see from this freedom is tenancies of a reasonable length as opposed to the present choice between life on the one hand and very short, almost legal fictions, on the other.
The second advantage which I underline is that with free bargaining there is greater opportunity to load tenancies with various ecological and environmental conditions if both sides desire them—and it is to be hoped and expected that increasingly both sides will. It is true that the Bill throws into high relief the need for certain tax reforms to make the tenancy and farming of occupational country more equitable for all concerned. But I have no doubt that the attention of the Chancellor will continue to be drawn to that problem.
Finally, it is an enormous and welcome change to receive in this House a largely popular and agreed measure piloted by the Government. If one could believe that one swallow made a summer and that this occasion heralds the end of the pattern of government Bills being both obnoxious and unworkable while all agreed measures are passed on to the Private Members' Bill circuit with all its drawbacks, we would be more than happy; we would be ecstatic!
4.8 p.m.
The Earl of Yarborough: My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak here today on the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, not because I am any expert on agricultural tenancy law but because I was fortunate enough to inherit an estate in Lincolnshire where the majority of the land is tenanted. It is an arable estate and we are able to provide relatively large tenanted holdings of over 400 acres on average. We have always been fortunate in the tenants we have had. Many families have had successive generations on the same farm and they have formed the backbone of the estate.
I am very pleased that this measure is being presented and that it should benefit the rural economy. The farming industry is facing ever more rapid change and this Bill should create the flexibility necessary to adapt to those changes more effectively. Much has changed over the last 50 years, especially where I come from. Up until my great-grandfather's day, all employees had it written into their contracts that they were to attend church and, even more recently, all our tenants' leases had a clause stating that they should walk a hound puppy. My grandfather had particularly firm views on estate management and even God's wisdom was not safe from them. While reading the lesson in church one Christmas morning from Luke, chapter 2, he got to the bit where the shepherds left their flocks to go in search of the baby Jesus. At this point my grandfather stopped, looked up at the congregation and said "If they'd been my shepherds, I'd have sacked them!"
Since 1948 agricultural legislation has created a situation whereby the landowner cannot let out land for a reasonable length of time without giving his tenants lifetime security of tenure. Even in our instance of investment farming, where the land is good and a long tenure is desirable, we have found the present law too

497
restrictive. Our experience is probably less dramatic than that of the struggling hill farmer, but still illustrates the good that this Bill can do for the rural economy as a whole.
In the past 12 years, the number of tenants on our estate has fallen by 20 per cent. That has happened for two main reasons. First, technological advances in farming have meant that farms have had to be amalgamated to provide a larger, more cost-effective acreage. These high-tech methods have resulted in the much lamented decline in the rural population but also in much greater efficiency. Most landlords have welcomed this efficiency but the social damage to life in the country has been terrible. I am sure everybody would be happy to see this trend in declining populations reversed or at least halted in some way. A decline in tenancy means a further decline in rural populations and representation. With each lease that is not renewed, not only does the potential tenant lose out but also all his potential employees. In our case, probably about 20 livelihoods have been lost by losing these tenancies.
The second reason for the decline in our tenant population is that we have opted to take land in hand in situations where neither lifetime leases nor very short-term agreements would be suitable. At present, the alternative to lifelong leases on arable land is limited to Gladstone v. Bower agreements—for over one year and under two—or a special dispensation from the Ministry of Agriculture for not more than five years. In some instances, these leases simply do not fit in with the circumstances. For example, a landlord may wish that his child should take on a farm in 10 to 15 years' time, but will be unable to arrange it so he will have no option but not to renew the lease. Even regardless of specific instances, these leases are too short for general farming purposes and leave the tenant no incentive to care for the land and buildings of his holding. By granting tenants statutory rights to compensation for improvements to their holdings, the Bill will safeguard their interests and enable them to farm responsibly on a shorter lease. If this clause can be drawn up in a way that will avoid tiresome and expensive arbitration and amending legislation, I think that the Bill can solve these problems.
Setting aside the important issue of fiscal incentive, the Bill has the widespread support of all the major farming organisations. It is a great step forward in the landlord/tenant relationship. It offers greater flexibility. It allows for diversification within the tenancy agreement. I am sure that it will give a great boost to the rural economy as a whole. Thank you.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I deem myself extremely fortunate to speak after the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough. I do not know how his ancestor got that dreadful reputation in the game of bridge, but clearly the noble Earl is better at speaking in your Lordships' House than playing bridge because he had a number of aces and kings in his hand. He made an excellent speech. He is a large landowner in Lincolnshire, which
498
gives him authority in speaking on this matter. He also demonstrated recently, when he was attacked by three men with baseball bats when going out cubbing, that he is likely to be a doughty contester for the cause of his party in your Lordships' House. I hope that we shall hear much more from him.
I greatly welcome this Bill. It acknowledges, really for the first time, agriculture as a business. It treats farmers and tenant farmers for the first time as grown-ups, able to negotiate, with the help of professional advisers, proper agreements for their tenancies. From 40 years' experience as a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and as a farmer, I have seen the need for something of this kind, and I am delighted to see the Bill before your Lordships and likely to go on to the statute book.
There were, I believe, some people who feared—and perhaps there still are some who fear—that under this arrangement the only tenancies that will be granted are short-term tenancies. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' survey foretold that most of the tenancies would be five-year tenancies. I think, with due deference, that the noble Lord may have misread "five years or more". I have before me the statistics and I see that tenancies for between 10 and 15 years significantly exceed the tenancies that are prognosticated for the five-year period.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I referred to the tenancies that are likely to be let in the first two years after legislation. If the noble Lord looks on the chart he will see that the majority are for five years.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have to say that I do not agree with the noble Lord. We shall have to meet and discuss the chart outside the Chamber.
The purpose of the research was to determine what would happen if the legislation was put in place. The 148 chartered surveyors who took part in the survey and who manage 3.25 million acres believe they will let 156,000 acres—that is to say, 4.8 per cent. of their management —for five years or more under a farm business tenancy. If that projection is extrapolated to all of the managed land in this country, it is likely that around 1 million acres will be let under this kind of tenancy. That will be additional to the existing tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
The Bill will probably need to be amended on certain issues. I am particularly concerned about the arrangements for arbitration for compensation on improvements. I acknowledge fully the importance of there being provision for compensation for improvements, but I think that there might be two difficulties. In this case I am looking at the matter particularly from the landlord's point of view. There may be difficulties from the tenant's point of view which I have not noticed. One difficulty might be the requirement to find a very large sum of money at 18 months' notice. That is particularly the case where a tenant may be putting up a corn storage and cleaning and storage complex. If finance terms are negotiated when the building or plant is put up, it can be purchased on a lease purchase or a hire purchase arrangement. If,

499
five years after the building has been put up, when it is partly paid off, the landlord has to try to re-arrange finance, he may find it very difficult indeed to do so. That kind of consideration will have to be looked at when we come to setting down amendments at the Committee stage.
The other area where I would be concerned about improvements from the landlord's point of view is that the directions to the arbitrator should be quite clear that the improved value of the holding created by the improvement is the value to a normally competent tenant and not to a specialist tenant. I have built up a very substantial business growing lettuces and salad plants and packing them for the supermarkets. That involved an enormous investment in irrigation, packing plants, and so forth. It is very improbable, had there been a landlord, that that landlord, when I retired, would be able to find another tenant who wished and was able to go on with the same business. We have to look again at that area of concern.
Another area of concern is the housing of the tenant at the end of the agreement. A major emotive issue in the landlord/tenant question is the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, that the farm is the home of the farmer and his family. One of the problems is that, even if the farmer wants to make provision for his housing at the termination of an agreement, it is difficult for him to do so, or he does so on less favourable terms than those of a normal employee because he cannot get the benefit of mortgage interest relief. That point needs to be looked at.
It may also be worthwhile to try to think a little creatively about this issue. Is it not the case that many estate owners would have houses into which a retiring tenant farmer could move to spend the rest of his days? If so, does the present legislation provide a vehicle by which such a person could be given a tenancy for his lifetime, or for the joint lifetimes of he and his spouse, which would come to an end and which would not give them statutory rights? I am not sure to what extent the provisions of the shorthold tenancy accommodate a life tenancy or a tenancy for life.
Finally, I believe that other noble Lords have already referred to the need for tax reform to reinforce the effect of this Act. I believe that also to be extremely important.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I too begin by saying how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough. I should declare my interest. I am an owner occupier. I used to be proud of my status as a yeoman farmer although my friends have long held that to be a fiction. I am not sure what my elevation to this House has done to that particular status. I am also a member of both the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association. That said, I hold no brief to represent their views. Indeed, I believe that I would be somewhat disappointed if they did not disagree, at the very least, with the tone of some of the things that I say.
In the debate on the gracious Speech I described the Bill we are reading for the second time today as bold and imaginative. The House will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat all that I said on that occasion,
500
but I hope for noble Lords' forgiveness in repeating my view that this is what I call "catching up" legislation. It will be interesting to see in time whether those who are leading the way ahead wish to be caught.
Statistics in the report of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers for 1993 dealing with tenanted farms handled by the association in that year make interesting reading. The trend, which has gone on for a long time, of agricultural land transferring from the tenanted sector into the owner-occupied sector continues. Overall, in a survey covering more than 230,000 acres, over 33,000 acres were sold by landlords in that year to sitting tenants. A further 14,000 acres were taken in hand by the owner on the cessation of a tenancy. In other words, if my analysis is correct, some 20 per cent. of formerly tenanted land that was, so to speak, "on the market" in that year, has ceased to be so. I wonder why. It will be interesting to see whether the Bill, with its creation of farm business tenancies—a novel type of tenancy that transforms the traditional meaning of the word—can reverse the trend.
There are other forces at work. The landlord-tenant system was unquestionably the most appropriate way of organising fanning one-and-a-half centuries ago. In those days it could take a full day just to travel round a large estate—and that without doing any business on the way. Working the land was labour intensive and the man management and cultural problems of a really large unit were insuperable. Today you can span the globe in 24 hours. Mechanisation, which is continually improving, means that only small numbers of increasingly sophisticated and skilled craftsmen are required to work the land. Add to that the intensifying pressure for the raw materials of the food industry to be produced at ever lower levels of unit cost and the trend is set. That will apply just as strongly in the specialist organic farming sector—of which my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam is such an able advocate—as it does in the more traditional agricultural field.
With these pressures, farmers will have to be able to organise for themselves a structure that meets the needs of the times. I do not believe that the taxpayer who all too often is the ex-redundant miner, the ex-redundant steelworker, the ex-redundant carmaker or the ex-redundant city worker, will for long wish to bear the social cost of keeping the countryside populated when he realises that the beauty of our landscapes can be maintained and even enhanced despite the fact that there may be fewer people working directly in fanning.
And so to the Bill itself. The creation of farm business tenancies should be supported although there may be argument about some clauses in the Bill. The measure should be supported because it brings change to the present legal structure for agricultural tenancies that marches well with developments on the ground. But we must not be sentimental. We cannot bring back the past. The world and farming are moving on. The legal

501
framework for landlords and tenants must move also or else it will be swept aside as irrelevant by the march of events.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on his excellent and witty maiden speech. It is clear that he is knowledgeable and experienced in agricultural affairs and the House looks forward very much to hearing him on these subjects in the future.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, reminded us that farming organisations generally have given the Bill a welcome and that reform of the tenanted sector is urgently necessary if the long-term decline to which he referred is to be halted. We must accept that a decline has taken place. In 1900 90 per cent. of the land was let but by 1990 the figure had fallen to 35 per cent. We also know that the Bill follows the agreement made by the agricultural organisations last December. It therefore deserves our constructive attention.
I must, however, emphasise that reform of the land law and of tenancy law in particular is a sensitive subject, not least in Wales. These were major political issues a century ago. They were one of the contentious subjects adopted by Lloyd George as a parliamentary candidate and a young solicitor in Caernarvonshire. The 1875 Act, to which the noble Earl referred, and subsequent legislation, did not give tenants at that stage the security they sought and deserved. Lloyd George and others were concerned to obtain security of tenure for tenants who had been evicted from their holdings by many landlords on political and religious grounds. I was told of a great uncle of mine who was deprived of his holding and his living in Caernarvonshire because the landlord disliked his politics. He and his family had no alternative but to emigrate to America, as did so many others at that time.
Things have changed. The old prejudices, thank heaven, have gone. But the sensitivity remains, and it would be a great mistake for the Government to neglect it. We must look carefully at the Bill and analyse it to ensure that it does not take us too far away from that element of security which is essential if farmers are to farm efficiently. I shall return to that in a moment.
There is one question which must be asked and answered by Ministers: will the Bill result in more successful and efficient tenant farming? We are told that the present system has discouraged new lettings of agricultural land. There is an element of truth in this, but we must not overlook the fact that today it is generally the son or another member of the family who succeeds his father. He has acquired experience. These days he has usually been to one of the agricultural colleges.
There is, I agree, an argument for broadening the scope of opportunity, but in so doing we must not deprive young local farmers of what has become their reasonable expectation.
I appreciate that Clause 2 provides that existing tenancies covered by the 1986 Act will not be affected, and I welcome that. But we must look very carefully at
502
the new tenancies, which are to be called farm business tenancies, because the Bill imposes a range of new regulations and it may not be easy to adapt to them. Clearly, the Bill expects the farmer to be a businessman, but there are very good farmers who will not fit easily into that frame. I know plenty of good businessmen who do not know the difference between a Friesian and a Welsh Black!
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to which reference has already been made, gives the Bill its general support and makes this important statement in its paper:
"Nothing should be signed before the 1st September, 1995, if people want to take advantage of a Farm Business Tenancy. When the Act comes into force there will be serious pitfalls for those who do not take good advice. Indeed because the parties are largely free to set their own terms they will need to have regard to the general law of landlord and tenant, common law and case law as well as tailoring an agreement which suits their particular circumstances".
That is sensible advice.
The institution is preparing advice on all the relevant issues. We should be grateful to it. I know that the farmers' unions and the Country Landowners' Association are ready to help. I should add, as a former country solicitor, that my colleagues in practice will be very glad to help as well. In fact, their assistance will be essential in the drafting of agreements. It is an ill wind which blows nobody any good.
Finally, there is one fundamental point which I must stress; namely, that the farming industry is not a short-term affair. It is a long-term enterprise. Whatever emerges from the Bill, that reality must always be borne in mind. It relates particularly to the traditional livestock farm. The farmer must look ahead. He must plan ahead. He must invest substantially in stock, machinery, quota rights and so on. You cannot build successful farms on the basis of short lets. With short lets, the tenant farmer would face worry and uncertainty and would not be able to plan properly for the future. And when the farmer on a short let goes to his bank for some financial support, what will be the response of the bank manager? He will say regretfully that he cannot help with so short a tenancy. The Government must bear that in mind when they promise increasing opportunities for young people. They must look at the reality of the situation and the problems which face young farmers and prospective young farmers in the countryside.
There are communities in Gwynedd which depend on the farming industry and which consist mainly of fairly small traditional farms. I do not want to see them disappear. I want to preserve those communities. Tom Williams's great Agricultural Act of 1947 set the industry on a course which made it the most successful in the world. We should not forget that achievement in this debate. Of course, reform and change are inevitable, but we must take care not to destroy the foundation of the industry. The Bill must be studied and dealt with bearing that in mind.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, in common with other Members of your Lordships' House, this is the third time that I have taken part in a Bill to revitalise the landlord and tenant system. I believe that this Bill

503
will help. It comes, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, with the wholehearted support of the industry, although I accept the point that was made by my neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that there is great sensitivity in Wales about the landlord problem. It may be that my family is at the back of that.
However, I have to repeat what I said on 20th July 1976 in col. 59 of Hansard. At that time I said that the only way really to help the tenant, particularly the young one looking for a long-term tenancy, was to stop penalising the landlord on the taxation front. I accept that since 1976 the 15 per cent. investment income surcharge has been lifted and that most new institutional landowners, whom I disliked intensely at that time, have gone, most of them, I am pleased to say, having lost a lot of money. However, inheritance tax relief on owner-occupied land is at 100 per cent., whereas on tenanted land it is at 50 per cent. Therefore, any prudent landlord will think very carefully before saddling his children with that extra liability. So if we really want the tenanted sector to flourish, we must make the tax equal between owner-occupied and tenanted land. I accept that the Government may not want to do that because they believe that it would cost the Treasury more.
I must declare an interest. I and my family before me have been landlords for many centuries. I am also an owner-occupier but, more importantly, I am a tenant and my heart has been, and still is, in the practice of farming rather than in landowning, so I go along with the idea of evening out the tax burden which would be at the expense of the owner-occupier—in other words at my expense—rather than the Treasury.
The Bill could cause some problems, but I am sure that they will be raised in Committee. Indeed, noble Lords have already referred to some. I refer, first, to the problem of scarcity value causing uneconomically high rents. That point has been made by my noble friend Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
I am also worried about subletting and am concerned that we consider how we should deal with the value of improvements. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that he would look at that from the point of view of the landlord. I strongly suspect that I shall look at it from the point of view of the tenant.
I refer finally to housing, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Although I was sorry that the noble Lord was so critical of the Bill—it was obviously painful to him to take such a line—I fear that his hair will turn grey before the Bill leaves the House. As I have said, I am concerned about the problem of housing, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I imagine that a tenant could be evicted after, say, 10 or 15 years when he has a wife and two children. Unless we give some thought to that, I fear that we could well return to another 1976 Act, which was caused by some of these problems, but which as I am sure your Lordships will remember was either preceded or followed (I cannot remember which) by the 1976 Tied Cottage Act. It might be worth your Lordships rediscovering that Act. Indeed, I have got it out of the attic.
504
That fear will encourage landlords to let to existing well-established farmers rather than younger ones, but there is nothing new in that. It has always been true that the only way into farming is patrimony, matrimony or parsimony. You can never get away from those three. I got in on matrimony, by the way.
So far as it goes, I welcome the Bill. I realise that my noble friend the Minister will rebuke me, and say that I should know that I should not deal with matters such as taxation and housing; but he knows me well enough to be aware that I do not pay a great deal of attention to some of the rules by which he tells me I should abide. I have to point out that after 18 years neither Socialist nor Conservative governments have grasped the vital tax nettle. Politicians may now be so far away from practical fanning that they do not know what a nettle is or what it can do to stifle growth.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Yarborough. He has the great advantage of firsthand knowledge of that marvellous farming county, Lincolnshire. I only hope that the length of this afternoon's debate will allow time for those beautiful Brocklesby foxhounds to be fed this evening, but I am sure that that has been taken into account.
It must be plain by now that the object of the Bill is to launch a rescue operation for the agricultural landlord and tenant system in England and Wales. As to the questions: first, why should it be rescued; secondly, what economic or social benefits does the system provide; and, thirdly, why does it have to be rescued now?—the first and third questions have been answered clearly by my noble friend Lord Howe. As to the second question, I say merely that the fundamental problem for British agriculture is the availability and cost of capital. Under the landlord-tenant system, the part played by the owners of agricultural land in the provision of the industry's capital requirements is a very significant one.
That was acknowledged by the committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, which was set up by the party opposite in 1977. We have already heard a quotation from the consequent report from the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The noble Lord, who was a member of that committee, will remember the section dealing with the contraction of the let sector. I quote from paragraph 579 of that report:
"We attach very considerable importance to its retention … we want to see a continued variety of forms of tenure: by its very existence, it supplies an important part of this and has a major role to play in British agriculture.
"We therefore conclude that there is a good case for retaining a healthy and reasonably substantial let sector".
A farm tenancy provides a farmer with the opportunity to borrow from a landowner on very favourable terms the land and fixed equipment through which to earn his living. He can go into business unencumbered by a massive bank loan to acquire land. Someone has said that if the system did not exist, it would have to be invented. Yet, as has been pointed out, that admirable system is in decline. It may not continue

505
to exist. By the Bill the Government are attempting, quite rightly, to reinvent it. The system has been in decline throughout this century.
As my noble friend the Minister reminded us, at the beginning of the century the proportion of tenanted land by area was about 80 per cent. of all farmed land. When I entered your Lordships' House 23 years ago, that proportion was 50 per cent. The reasons for that change are well known, and I do not have to rehearse them.
The growth of owner-occupation was a healthy trend, and the balance of about half the land farmed by owner-occupiers and half by tenants seemed about right. Since then, well-intentioned legislation and taxation, through policies where good intentions were less obvious, have accelerated the decline. The proportion of land farmed by tenants is believed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—I believe that he is right—to be about 25 per cent. But the worrying thing is that only a small proportion of that 25 per cent. is due to new lettings.
I referred to legislation. My noble friend the Minister has rightly called it a tangle. The 1976 Act was a killer in that respect, as those of us who opposed its passage in the House said that it would be. The supply of land to let dried up. But that piece of folly was not the only cause of the fall in the number of farms offered by owners for renting. Despite some alleviation by this Government, fiscal disincentives discouraged owners from letting. Some young owners have found it more profitable to farm land themselves than to let it. As my noble friend Lord Stanley reminded us, the institutions which rushed in to invest in tenanted land rushed out again when the going got rough. Other ways of organising land ownership and management have been devised.
All those factors, plus a good deal of prodding in which I was closely involved, persuaded the Government to produce the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984—another attempt to cure the patient by legislation. I had grave misgivings. The Act was based on a not very satisfactory compromise within the industry arrived at with enormous difficulty. I feared that it would not be effective in producing more tenancies. However, I supported the Bill in the House because I felt that any measure which might possibly prop up the system was better than nothing. I felt too that there was a faint chance of something better turning up.
After a bit of a lurch backwards over legislation to compensate tenants for their milk quotas, 10 years later the Government have produced something better—much better. Ten years is a long time to see what is needed and to act upon it, but in that time there has been a vast amount of legislation of a much higher priority. I suppose it has probably taken all that time to get all the parties in the industry to agree. That they have done so, and are backing the Bill, is a matter for congratulation to their leaders. I am bound to say that I am disappointed by the lukewarm attitude of the party opposite, despite the agreement and enthusiasm of all interested parties.
This is the last chance to save the system from terminal decline by means of legislation. It could be called a deregulation measure, because it gives parties to a future arrangement between landlord and tenant a
506
chance to break free from all previous legislation. Except in regard to compensation for tenants' improvements, the parties can negotiate virtually any terms that they wish. I see nothing threatening in that. I last spoke on farm tenancies about four years ago on a Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley, and to which he has referred. At that time I quoted the then president of the CLA who said:
"There are those who will be alarmed by a call for such freedom to negotiate. I do wonder why. Landlords asking unreasonable conditions will get no tenants. Unreasonable tenants will get no farms".
Those words should perhaps guide us during the Bill's passage. But this measure alone will not save the landlord-tenant system in agriculture. Fiscal disincentives remain. So the complement to the Bill must be reform of the fiscal regime to bring the tax treatment of let land, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, into line with owner-occupied land. I am not sure that I agree with him as to how that should be done, but we can look at that matter later. That would then release the potential for continued expansion in a revitalised rented sector. Nevertheless, this Bill is an essential first step. It is in itself a breakthrough and I congratulate the Government on its introduction and offer the Bill my wholehearted support.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, it falls to me, although with a voice which is not as strong as I should like, to second the congratulations from the Cross-Benches to the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on his contribution and to welcome him to this House. As a nominated Member, perhaps I may say that he provides some argument for the intelligence of the hereditary principle. But I shall not take that argument further this evening.
For me, the test of the Bill is its contribution to sustainability—whether it creates the concept for sustainable development as it applies to agriculture and what contribution it makes to that. Sustainability can be taken in different ways. There is the sustainability of the general environment, which must be our major context.
In that regard, I have an anxiety about the Bill; namely, that it does not talk enough about the environmental content of any agricultural tenancy agreements and new business farm tenancy agreements that are made. It will come as no surprise to the noble Earl on the Front Bench, because I have spoken on this theme before in this House, that I believe that we should write an environmental obligation into new legislation which has an environmental impact. Farm business tenancies are not just a matter for the free market between landlord and tenant. They have an environmental impact which should be registered. In that context, I am concerned that reductions in public expenditure which may be determined tomorrow in another place may have an impact on the very effective environmental agricultural schemes which have been produced by MAFF in England, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Countryside Council for Wales. The environmental contents of agricultural enterprises must be addressed.

507
The other form of sustainability is that which applies to agricultural skill within communities. That is another form of sustainability. It is a cultural and generational sustainability. That was the traditional argument in favour of the previous legislation: that there should be a right of lifetime tenancy and succession on a basis of agricultural skill.
Those who have argued for the Bill on the basis of deregulation do not attract my immediate support because deregulation as a philosophy and as an effective form of management to me smells too much of an ideological position and not enough of a practical application. It may well be that when we are "contractorising" everything, we should be contractorising the management of agriculture. But it seems to me that we must have sterner arguments in terms of the effective use of the land resource and agricultural skills.
I am impressed by the fact that the CLA, the NFU and the Tenant Farmers' Association and the young farmers clubs have come together to produce this package. As someone who lives in Wales, I regret that the Farmers' Union of Wales did not feel able to subscribe to the package for its own reasons. I know that its policy is directed towards lifetime tenancy and in Committee I shall wish to support or move any amendments which seek to secure assurances from that viewpoint.
The Farmers' Union of Wales has a particular anxiety about the impact of the Bill on the livestock sector and areas where agricultural enterprise is perhaps based more on sheep and hill cattle. Therefore, in the context of the HCLA income position and environmental, market and other pressures, it is concerned that the Bill may bring about a further undermining of the viability of longer-term tenancies.
However, it seems to me that its argument is based on the fact that in principle it would want lifetime tenancies. If landowners feel unable to make such tenancies, then it seems to me that it should concentrate its argument more on the fiscal and general aspects of agricultural policy because after all, a tenancy is a freely agreed understanding between landlord and tenant. Therefore to try to legislate further for control over that area in a reducing market is to reduce the amount of land which will become available.
We must address also the other issue of sustainability; that is, how we can ensure that the longer-term performance of our agriculture industry is improved by the Bill. That is not just a matter of improving productivity. It. is a matter of ensuring efficient productivity within environmental and social parameters. Again, we need to see the Bill in the context of the future of the common agricultural policy of the European Community and the future of environmental policy as it relates to the CAP and to look for ways in which to encourage diversification in the countryside in the most positive way possible.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that nothing in the Bill will prevent farm enterprise from diversifying. It seems to me that we are now in a situation in which we must look at countryside policy in a comprehensive way. We must say that agricultural
508
production and food production is an essential part of countryside management as is environmental and land management and the ensuring of countryside sustainability in environmental and landscape terms for future generations. All those aspects come together in the farming enterprise.
The farming enterprise is important because it provides a clear productive base in countryside life. If we can increase that prospect for younger farmers—and I think we have the support of younger farmers in doing that—we can create a context in which the countryside again will appear to be a sharp end of imaginative community life.
Far too often the countryside is produced and reproduced as an image of tradition, an image of the past and an image of practices that were inherited. For goodness sake, we must look to the 21st century! I feel that I speak here for the young farmers' clubs of Eryrys and other parts of Wales. We must look to the countryside as a place where young people will feel they want to live; where people coming from the city will feel they want to live; where people from outside Wales and other parts of the European Union will feel they want to live. We must see that in a European framework.
The countryside should not be seen as merely a repository for traditional practices. It must be seen also as an area where young people feel that they can invest and have a future. That requires a feeling of security; not just a feeling of security of tenure, but security of income and enjoyment of the facilities within the countryside.
For all those reasons, I have some reservations about the Bill which I shall wish to develop further as we talk it through. But basically I believe that we are now in a situation in which traditional forms of landlord-tenant arrangements no longer apply. However, we have what is, for me, the fundamental test of seeing the Bill in terms of its contribution to the sustainability of life in the countryside. That means security not just of tenure but security of income and the ability to contribute to countryside life, which again contributes to the broader life of the region and to the broader life of the diversity of urban and rural society.
4.59 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am aware that there are some who are not perhaps as happy about this Bill as others. But I believe that the majority of people who have an interest in the well-being of the countryside warmly welcome it. Like my noble friend Lord Stanley, I was rather disappointed in the reaction that I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the Opposition Front Bench. However, I was, perhaps, a little encouraged when the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that he would pay "constructive attention" to the Bill. I very much hope that we can expect constructive attention from the Benches opposite. I believe that through the Bill we have a very real chance, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, of actually bringing something forward which will really help bond the landlord and tenant system for the future. That is what we are talking about.

509
Congratulations are due to the Government for acting so positively, and also to all sides of the industry for coming together in the way that they have. I know that it has not been easy. I know that many a meeting has gone on long into the night to try to produce this balanced package. I congratulate everyone on having produced such an acceptable Bill; and special attention is due to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which has done so much in such an impartial way by acting as honest brokers.
As has already been identified by many speakers, there is a need for change. As we all know, agriculture is going through a difficult time. There are the uncertainties surrounding the agricultural policy and the flexibility of GATT. Unless there is a real will and a realism from all sides of the industry for flexibility and dynamism I believe that the traditional land tenure is under threat. The fact that there has been such an increase in Gladstone v. Bower agreements is a testimony to that. As my noble friend the Minister said in his opening speech, conditions must be right for landlords to let land. That is absolutely fundamental to the whole question. That reality is every bit as important as the other realities mentioned by noble Lords opposite.
The 1976 Act, which worked—and I can only describe it in this way—so effectively against market forces, put the landlord-tenant relationship into a strait-jacket from which it has been trying to escape ever since. We had the various Acts of the 1980s and no doubt they helped considerably. But this Bill addresses, for the first time, the problems in a thoroughly comprehensive way. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, it treats both parties in a grown-up fashion. That is why I believe that the noble Lord is absolutely right: it identifies the real strengths of the Bill.
The landlord-tenant system has proved the test of time, despite efforts to derail it. As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton said, it has provided opportunities for young people—and those not so young—to enter farming at a comparatively low cost. It has also given those who want to let land an effective means of having that land managed. But, as in any relationship, for that relationship to work, whether it be business or personal, there must be confidence. That confidence comes from flexibility on both sides. I believe that that is what the Bill creates.
The number of acres occupied by tenant farmers has declined rapidly, as was mentioned by many speakers, thus producing a reduction in the number of those entering into farming. I believe that that needs to be addressed, not just in simple farming terms but also as part of an overall desire to establish more permanent jobs in the countryside.
The RICS predicts that an extra 1 million acres will become available to let—and this is somewhat different from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—
"soon after the Act comes into force".
I hope that the institution is right. I have to say that, like the noble Lord, I am a little sceptical about it. I suspect that there will be relatively few extra farmers created. I
510
should have thought that short term tenancies, to which reference was made, will be taken up either by existing tenants or by owner-occupiers. However, I do not believe that that matters. Clearly, some people will come into the industry for the first time. Surely that is to be welcomed. But I fear that the decline in agricultural holdings, the increase in size brought about by market forces and the need for economies of scale are bound to happen. The long-term prognostications for the number of people on the land is bound to drop.
There is a further point that I should like to make which I believe has been referred to by virtually every speaker. I refer to the absolutely essential matter of tax incentives. All we are asking for is that let land and in hand land be treated the same. We are not talking simply about income tax schedules; we are talking about capital gains tax and inheritance tax. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench is only too aware of the strong feeling that exists on the matter. I very much hope that he will—and I am sure he will—mention that to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, it is a little late for tomorrow, but at least we can but ask.
Inevitably, there are certain aspects of the Bill that are contentious. Indeed, there are one or two points about which I am not particularly happy. For example, I came across the term "intangible advantages". I suspect that that will need tightening up. Equally, I am somewhat concerned about the compensation for planning permission. It is a tricky subject which, unless dealt with carefully, could end in difficulties in the future. However, I know that the latter are important matters of detail which will be dealt with later in Committee.
It is most important that the Bill should be perceived to be fair. By and large, I believe that it is. Our overriding need is clearly to strive for a balance which will work to free up the agricultural industry. I believe that that has been achieved through the Bill. As I said, I also believe that all parties should be congratulated. I very much hope that the Bill will achieve what I believe it can achieve.
I conclude by pleading with the Opposition to take this opportunity to bring both sides of the industry together so that we have something which we can all work towards in the future, thus giving confidence to both landlord and tenant.
5.7 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest in having successfully experienced three different landlords while a tenant farmer, on the same holding in Lincolnshire over a period of 20 years. I trust that those same three landlords gleaned the benefit of me as a tenant. I must say that my noble friend Lord Yarborough, whom I must most warmly congratulate on his maiden speech and whose land reached close to mine, was not my landlord. However, his hounds knew most of my farm.
Prior to the Second World War, the countryside was a mosaic of habitats, including small mixed cropped fields, hedgerows, woodlands, ponds and wetlands which held an immensely diverse range of wildlife.

511
Specialisation and intensification—heavily supported by production-oriented policies—resulted in an increase in arable land and a decrease in habitats and wildlife which depend on them.
Since the Second World War, we have seen a 32 per cent. increase in arable land and a loss of 34 per cent. of improved pasture. While hedgerows have suffered huge losses as a result of economic incentives to intensify land use, the Government should be congratulated on creating various schemes which encourage the planting of new hedgerows. Since 1984, over 8,000 miles of new hedgerows have been planted in Great Britain, and that includes 2,200 miles of relaying existing hedgerows and 1,000 miles of new hedgerows funded by the Government's farm conservation scheme. Many more new hedgerows have been planted under the countryside stewardship scheme, and individual schemes run by local authorities.
In the forthcoming Environment Agencies Bill, the Government should again be congratulated on not only bringing forward new measures to protect hedgerows of particular importance, but also on introducing new provisions to create free standing national park authorities for England and Wales. The 10 existing national parks, excluding the Broads, cover a total of 3,385,677 acres, much of which is agricultural land.
The RSPB and other organisations support the Agricultural Tenancies Bill as it will enable landlords to prescribe conservation targets and management practices when negotiating tenancies. County councils in England and Wales own over 360,000 acres of agricultural land involving over 5,400 tenant farmers. Many county councils include specific conservation practices in tenancy agreements and this is to be welcomed.
I pick up on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and his mention of sustainability. If the Government are to meet their commitments under the hiodiversity convention and the sustainable development plan they must seek to influence those activities and policies which have the greatest impacts upon the countryside and its natural resources. As agricultural land makes up 70 per cent. of Britain's land surface, the RSPB is particularly keen that agricultural activities should be carefully modulated to take account of the needs of wildlife conservation. Therefore I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will consider issuing advice in the form of a code of guidance to county councils, the Ministry of Defence and the Crown Estate on the desirability of including species and habitat targets and specific conservation practices in new farm tenancy agreements. The industry agrees with the principles of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill and we should give the Bill our undivided support and wish it well on its passage.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as the Minister rightly observed, there is a wealth of expert knowledge on this subject in your Lordships' House, and indeed that has emerged in contribution after contribution in the course of the debate. It is therefore with considerable diffidence that I venture to speak in this debate. However, I assure
512
your Lordships that I am not a complete outsider as I was particularly fortunate to be brought up in a Welsh rural community and I am indebted to that community.
I should also like to thank the Minister for his brief survey of the history of landlord and tenant legislation over the past 150 years and for having guided us so clearly through the Bill. But I trust that he will not be impatient with the wise advice which my noble friends Lord Carter from the Labour Front Bench and Lord Cledwyn, a former Minister of Agriculture, have tendered. Obviously, my noble friends Lord Carter and Lord Cledwyn are in need of no support from me. Nevertheless, I should like to emphasise one or two central points which they have made. I apologise if I briefly go over again some of the ground which they have covered.
We have heard this afternoon a great deal about the problems facing new entrants from outside into the farming industry. I think we are all conscious that there is a problem: the shortage of let land. That is the common ground. I for my part would accept that there may be a case for some change in the present law on agricultural tenancies. But that is a long way from saying, as many people do, that this Bill offers the right solution and will on its own revitalise the tenanted sector.
I think we have had few figures quoted by the Minister in this debate. I believe it would be helpful to the House if he could forecast, if he is able to do so, how many acres of land for rent are likely to be freed within five years of the passage of this Bill. I should also like to hear the Government's view on the forecast by the accountants, Grant Thornton, that the Bill will make less land available for letting than is anticipated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It would be interesting to have the Government's view on those assessments.
The Minister has quite rightly reminded us that this Bill has been four years in gestation; but there are many farmers in Wales who believe that the farm business tenancy solution proposed by the Bill will not discharge the high hopes placed on it. What they fear is that painful problems will be stored up against the day when the business tenancy ends and it could therefore, if they are right, be a recipe for trouble.
We have heard from many speakers that at the end of the tenancy the tenant will have no right to renew the tenancy. But added to this—I am glad that this has been acknowledged by a number of speakers from the other side of the House—the tenant, or former tenant as he would be, may be unable to find new land to rent. He could therefore be, as we have heard, not only out of business but without a home for his wife and his family. I would have thought that that situation speaks for itself. Is there not a real risk, I feel bound to ask myself, that in the longer term the farm business tenant and his family will be paying too high a price for such a tenure?
A wholly legitimate pressure for more let farmland—I accept that it is legitimate—should not be allowed to produce a simple solution which could lead to painful consequences for the tenant. I thought that that point was very well made in an eloquent letter by a Mr. Harrison, a Northumberland farmer, in last week's

513
Farmers Weekly. In a sense, looked at the other way round, it would not be surprising, (would it?) if people, unless they have retained their homes, were put off from entering into a business tenancy. There is something else. I ask myself: is it fair for the Government to open up a path which can prove to be troublesome at the end of the journey?
It is against that background that I should like briefly to make two points. We know that a part of the concept of the farm business tenancy is derived from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; but we also know that the Bill, as drafted, does not provide for the right of renewal which is available to the business tenant under the 1954 Act. Would it not be an improvement, and would it not be fair to the tenant, to include in the present Bill at least the right to renewal of the tenancy subject to prescribed conditions? Perhaps we may be told by the Minister, when he replies to the debate, why it is that a right of renewal available under the 1954 Act in respect of the tenancy of a shop or of an office will not be available to the tenant of a farm. I may say that I am not the only one who did not find the arguments against the right of renewal, which are advanced in paragraph 5 of the 1991 consultative document, to be convincing. As a matter of interest, I note that the reasoning given in 1991 was abandoned in the 1992 document. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that when he replies to the debate.
I should like to go back briefly to what has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn about the position in Wales. The Minister in his opening speech took us along a panorama of landlord and tenant legislation. However, there is an impressive tale that can be told about the struggle between landlord and tenant in Wales, to which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn referred, and which led to the setting up in 1893 of the Royal Commission on Welsh Land Tenure to explore tenants' grievances. Given that history, a century later Welsh tenant farmers are wary of the Bill. I hope that the Government will appreciate their anxieties.
It was said by the Minister this afternoon, and it was said in the debate last Wednesday on the loyal Address, that this solution is fully supported by the main organisations representing both landlords and tenants. I wonder whether the Minister's advisers have really read all the submissions from Wales. I find it very hard indeed to find evidence that they have done so. We know that the Farmers' Union of Wales does not support the concept. I very much hope that the Minister will not dismiss their objections as the objections of people who are oblivious to reason or diehards, to use the words which were rather unfortunately used.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, perhaps I may join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Yarborough on a fine maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear more from him in the near future.
It is with great pleasure that I find myself able to speak in the Second Reading of this Bill, which is so important to the rural economy. As a chartered surveyor in the rural practice division of the RICS I am very
514
aware, as I know other noble Lords are, that the industry has been discussing the revision of the agricultural holdings legislation for some time. That has enabled the various interest groups to be in some agreement, with the RICS providing its knowledge of the industry from its role as adviser to both landlord and tenant.
Today the industry can show only little evidence of new lettings becoming available. Glancing through a recent edition of the Farmers Weekly, the only opportunities available were two Gladstone v. Bower agreements and a five-year Ministry licence, both examples of short-term agreements. None of that can offer great encouragement to the new entrant.
It is therefore evident that action is required. Tenancies under the 1984 Act, being lifetime agreements, and those under the 1976 Act, with two successions, have had an enormous effect in discouraging landlords from letting their land on the open market. We therefore have a plethora of various types of different agreements that enable landowners to keep control of their land and be classed as farming in hand, and therefore to benefit from the resultant taxation treatment. No matter what legislation we have before us, it will take a great deal to persuade landowners away from highly successful alternative forms of farming agreements.
Landowners and tenants must be made aware that the Bill will provide them with the legal framework to form a clear-cut relationship, with the landowner receiving a regular income agreed between the parties to the tenancy, and the tenant being aware of his obligations and the length of the term. Arrangements such as share-farming are often not clear and certainly without a regular income, not to mention the legal minefield that may occur in some thinly disguised agreements where rent is paid in everything but name.
I have already mentioned the requirement of gaining the confidence of the industry, but probably the most important requirement is suitable financial conditions. By that I mean comparable relief between let land and in-hand land.
I am also concerned that some of the statistics do not point to much more land becoming available. The RICS has produced some interesting information, but I am somewhat concerned—and on this matter I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter —that they do not show that fully equipped tenancies, let for a term that will encourage long-term husbandry, will come on the market.
The picture that becomes clear from the information available is of a situation in which the majority of units let under a farm business tenancy will be let for a term of less than 10 years. Most of those units will be bare land units which will tend to be let to existing farmers rather than new entrants.
Having expressed my concerns, overall I am hopeful that this legislation will provide the right framework. I was particularly glad to see that there is no retrospective effect on holdings let under the Agricultural Holdings Act. I am also glad to see that certain mandatory matters cover various important areas, such as notice requirements, notices to terminate a farm business tenancy, notices if necessary to trigger rent reviews and

515
also notices before the grant of a tenancy. I am also glad that the position relating to service of notices, which in the past has led to difficulties and been unclear, is more clearly defined in Clause 34 of the Bill.
Tenants' improvements is another area in which I am pleased to see changes. The position under the Agricultural Holdings Act is complicated and could be described as being weighted against the tenant. The Bill now proposes that should a landlord refuse consent for a tenant's improvement the tenant will now have the opportunity to apply to an arbitrator for the consent and thus enable compensation to be paid by the landlord to the tenant at the end of the term. In addition, the tenant will be able to apply for planning permission without fear of the landlord serving a notice to quit under the required case provision in the 1986 Act and, at the end of the term, the tenant will be able to claim compensation for the consent on termination, whether or not that consent has resulted in the improvement being carried out.
Another area in which improvements have been made is dispute resolution. That has been made much simpler. As I understand that part of the Bill, the parties to a tenancy will be able to put mechanisms in the agreement to provide for the appointment of umpires or experts before going down the costly and time-consuming route of arbitration.
Freedom of contract will enable landowners and tenants to prepare agreements to suit their own needs as well as the requirements of the holding. Terms can be agreed to reflect the varying conditions of a holding. For example, in the case of a holding with many listed farm buildings the resulting repair responsibility for those buildings must be equitable between the parties. For a holding which has a high environmental value the landlord and tenant can agree a farming standard and rental value which will take such factors into account.
The whole basis of the Bill is a meeting of like minds, that of a willing landlord and a willing tenant. To enable the legislation to work, freedom of contract and flexibility are of prime importance. In particular, I refer to the length of term. It would be enormously detrimental to have a minimum term, which would defeat the whole concept of the Bill.
We will be mistaken if we expect a massive number of holdings to become available. The confidence of the industry must first be gained. I feel that with this Bill we are going some way to achieving that aim. Having passed through the legislative process, I hope that this Bill will provide a relatively simple piece of legislation compared with past attempts at revision of the landlord and tenant system in England and Wales.
5.27 p.m.
The Marquess of Hertford: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Yarborough. I thought his speech outstanding. I once had the pleasure of galloping over some of his land, and the rather less intense pleasure of falling into one of his very big ditches.
516
Like many other speakers today, I declare an interest. I am both a landlord and a tenant, and a member of both the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers Union, both of which give this Bill strong support.
In 1940 I had the good fortune to inherit an estate in Warwickshire. There were then 24 farm tenants. There are now three, apart from me and my son. That is not merely because death duties reduced the size of the estate, but mainly due to the effect of the Agriculture Act 1947, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, and all the other legislation which has been enacted which has given so many rights to tenants and so few to landlords that many—probably most—people in my position have done everything possible to take their land in hand and farm it themselves. Perhaps that was selfish; but I do not believe that it was necessarily good for the industry.
Given time, the Bill may change that state of affairs. It should eventually make it a great deal less difficult for a young man who is not the son of a farmer to acquire a farm tenancy. Agricultural colleges are full of young men who would like to take up farming. The best they can hope for from college is to become a foreman or farm manager. The Bill will provide a much needed degree of flexibility, enabling a landowner and a tenant to make arrangements that suit them both instead of being bound by out-of-date rules.
I realise that to some people the very word "landlord" has an aroma of sulphur about it, no doubt connected with ancient folk memories of evictions, enclosures, and so forth. It is in some ways perhaps unfortunate that so very few country constituencies ever elect Labour Members of Parliament. One cannot help feeling, perhaps wrongly, that most Members of the Opposition know and care very little about what life in the country is actually like—how it works, or how we all live. That could account for their dislike of hunting and shooting as well as a distrust of landlords.
I hope that there will not be too much opposition to the Bill. I am moderately encouraged by the apparent wish of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to amend rather than to oppose the legislation. It is a good, useful and helpful measure. I sincerely hope that it passes through Parliament and becomes law before the next general election.
5.31 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, first, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Howe for my late arrival and for missing his opening "overs". The fact that I could not be here on time was because I had to attend a funeral in Norfolk. However, I am delighted that I was not too late to hear the magnificent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Yarborough whose knowledge of land and farming is reminiscent of that of his much respected late father whom we all miss very much.
I much welcome the Bill, as do all noble Lords on this side of the Chamber. The reasons have been given and do not need rehearsing again. However, perhaps I may make a few points.
Mention has been made of compensation to the tenants. I am all for fair compensation to tenants—indeed to a greater extent than occurs now. However,

517
the principle of compensation for a tenant relates not to his expenses but to that which he leaves behind. If he were so permitted, a tenant could leave behind the quota system, in particular for livestock. At present the quota does not lie with the land but with the tenant. We know that there are difficulties in that respect. However, I hope that my noble friends will consider the issue. Where a tenant retires from farming and takes his most valuable quota for livestock with him, in effect the value of the letting of that holding is reduced in the future because the landlord can offer only accommodation rather than facilities for the land to be stocked. I hope that that quota could be purchased by the incoming tenant, with the outgoing tenant compensated for it.
I am slightly unhappy about Clause 23(3). I may have misread and misunderstood it. My noble friend will correct me. However, as I understand the clause, the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation at the end of any tenancy after the initial tenancy, whether for two years, five years, 10 years or whatever,
"in respect of any tenant's improvement provided during the earlier tenancy in relation to the land comprised [therein]".
If that is so, I do not believe that the position is quite fair. Reference has been made to the Gladstone v. Bower agreements. When shorthold tenancy agreements are renewed, the tenant is entitled to compensation. However, if he takes on the new tenancy, the amount of compensation will be rolled over and carried forward. I do not understand why that cannot occur under the Bill. For instance, if with the landlord's consent a tenant puts up a set of buildings which are worth £20,000, the write-off of buildings is generally about 20 years, which represents £1,000 a year. If his first tenancy were for five years, he would be entitled to compensation of £15,000. However, as I understand the Bill, if he were to continue the tenancy for another five years, at the end of the second five years he will not be entitled to any compensation for the buildings erected during the first tenancy. Perhaps my noble friend will clarify that point and tell me whether I am wrong. If I am not wrong, perhaps that matter could be considered.
I turn to taxation. I see that my noble friend Lord Stanley is in his seat. He believes that he will have the same ticking off that I may receive as I am not a taxation expert. However, if I understood his remarks correctly, I was somewhat concerned that he seemed to come down more in favour of the interests of the Treasury than with regard to the land. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the issue. He said that his party agrees that it would be better to have the tenanted sector and the owner occupier sector taxed on the same basis. That is all very well. But which way round will that taxation be? Will the tenanted sector join the vacant possession sector, or will it be the other way round? That factor could make a substantial difference. If noble Lords opposite believe that it would be correct to put taxation for vacant possession land on the same basis as that of the tenanted sector, then the chances of the Bill succeeding in the long term will be somewhat reduced.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I did not state that with regard to equalisation. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley,
518
suggested that the relief should be equalised at 50 per cent. It is an interesting idea from the Benches opposite to which we are listening with great interest.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know that percentages or levels of taxation were not referred to. I simply had uncomfortable feelings that someone could deal a card under the table. I hope that my noble friend Lord Stanley was not putting forward such a proposal, or we might find ourselves in gentle disagreement.
Concern has rightly been raised on housing. That issue frightens me because if one seeks to dot too many "i's" and cross too many "t's", one cannot cover every aspect. Properties in the rented sector outside agriculture almost dried up because it was felt that security of tenure for the tenant was sacrosanct at all costs. Of course, I am sure that everyone will agree that people who occupy their homes should be treated properly and not evicted without thought. That would be desperately unfair. We had a successful shorthold tenancy Act. The rented tenanted sector—it is an essential part of the housing and property industry—has now increased.
What shall we do with the agricultural side? It is popularly supposed that farmers will automatically take the farmhouse as well as the land, but that does not always work. Reference has already been made to smaller holdings. Efficiency and the greater size of farm machinery has led to those smaller holdings becoming larger. But that does not necessarily mean that the houses which may be scattered around are all needed by the farmer. If difficulties arose on housing, landlords might feel that they had to let the land separately from the house. That would be unfortunate.
No landlord whom I know would want to see anything but long-term tenancies; whether it is annual, a 10-year term, or whatever else, is beside the point, it does not matter. If you have good farmers and good tenants you want to keep them and see them year in, year out. They become your friends and you work with them. It is a partnership. Therefore, if a good man takes a lease and lives in the house, he is there for a considerable time. However, if a prospective tenant farmer signs an agreement which gives him, say, only three years' security of tenure and the farmhouse is included, he knows beforehand what agreement he is entering into. There is no compulsion on him, no force, nothing; it is up to him. It would be unfortunate if we were sidetracked in the Bill on the housing problem.
Finally, I support the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who said that the Bill stems from a desire to let long rather than short. I wish to quote from the brief of the Tenant Farmers' Association in case noble Lords have not seen it. At the end, the association states:
"We fear that political uncertainty could be the greatest incentive to let short particularly in the early years … This Bill does not affect the terms of existing tenancies and it is important that any future legislation should similarly avoid retrospection".
That is the one point which makes me anxious about the Bill. It was passed in 1976 against all advice and I can still see the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, standing and wagging his finger at the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and telling him: "This Bill will not work.

519
What happens to the succession of tenancies if the whole tenancy sector dries up?". That Bill allowed for existing tenancies under the 1948 Act to be held for three generations. It was wrong to break that contract. I am sorry to have to say it, but only recently we saw the leasehold reform legislation passed by the party to which I have the honour to belong. The legislation tore up the sanctity of contracts on leases freely entered into by people. Here we have a potentially excellent Bill and I very much hope that landlords and tenants will enter into agreements for 10, 15 or whatever number of years so that they have stability on which they can build and something to which they can look forward. However, I should like an undertaking from my noble friend and the Government that any future legislation affecting tenancies will not affect any tenancy entered into under this Bill. Although the Bill sounds good, I am concerned that the absence of such a provision will be a detraction.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Hampden: My Lords, I apologise for making an unscheduled appearance; but since we have managed to get through 16 speeches in under two-and-a-half hours, I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I add three minutes to the time of the debate. One learns many things in your Lordships' House, and last week I learnt not to ring the Government Whips' Office on a Friday afternoon if one wants to speak on a Monday because one's name gets lost.
I must also declare an interest in the debate. Like many noble Lords, I am a landowner and we have been involved with landowner-tenant situations for many generations. While preparing for the debate, I rummaged in the archives to see what earlier agricultural tenancies might help us and I came across a simple one. The rent was a small sum of money—1,500 head of garlic and 12 barbed arrowheads! The only stipulation on the tenant was to appear with a white stick in the park once a year among the reapers. I am not sure what the white stick was for, but the barbed arrowheads were certainly for the Battle of Bannockburn, since that was the date of the lease. So noble Lords can see that we have been involved with landlord and tenant relationships for 700 years.
As to the Bill, we have heard from a number of your Lordships of the broad agreement of the CLA, the NFU and the tenants' association. I hope that I shall not be one of those whom the Minister described as "oblivious to the evidence" in front of me when I say that I have certain doubts about whether the Bill will work. It seems to me that when three parties who do not normally see eye-to-eye manage to get together and agree on something, the time for that agreement has probably passed. However, I may be wrong.
The evidence before my eyes is that for the past 10 years I have been my own estate agent in Sussex. I have 25 tenant farmers with land varying from 1,000 acres to 50 acres, and in all those years I have not received a single inquiry as to whether I had any farms to rent. So I wonder whether there is a demand for tenanted farms. Of course, I have to say that Sussex is Southdown chalkland and Wealden clay and does not yield a great deal. The noble Lord, Lord Yarborough—whose speech
520
we much enjoyed—will know that one of his tenants or neighbours came to a farmers' shoot last week. When he was asked what his yield was, he said that it was 4.5 tonnes to the acre, and I do not think he got another shot that day. He was pushed to the end of the line.
One aspect of the Bill may help. I have a problem which I suspect many landlords have with tenants who are getting on in age: their families do not wish to follow them into the farms; they have seen the light and gone elsewhere. The farmers have got into a situation where they farm to make a living, not a profit; their energy is running down; the farms are running down. They do not have enough money to retire elsewhere; and because the rent is based on pound per acreage and 100 acres at £30 is £3,000, they have a very nice farmhouse for £3,000. However, if they tried to find rented accommodation in the village or the town it would probably be much more. A term tenancy would get round that problem because the tenant would know exactly when he has to give up, and by preparing for it he can help himself. That raises the matter of the farmhouse which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Northbourne: what does one do about houses for farmers?
I was interested in the contributions from the noble Lords from Wales. I have great sympathy with their position because as a child I was brought up on my grandfather's estate in south-west Wales—a lovely estate which was given to his family by Henry Tudor as a reward for marching from Pembroke to Bosworth Field in 1485 and helping Henry Tudor onto the throne.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Hear, hear!
Viscount Hampden: My Lords, whether the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will say "hear, hear" when I tell him something interesting about my grandfather, I do not know. He was the only Member able to vote against the Parliament Act 1911 in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In 1910 he was Unionist Member of Parliament for Brighton and voted against it. Then, after his father died, he came up to your Lordships' House and voted against it again. So I do not think he would be on the same political side as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
I am not an expert on reading Bills, but one point which seems important to me in the country is continuity. We know that the 1976 legislation on succession just did not work because it loaded the dice too much in one direction. I was talking about it to my tenant farmers and the ones who have been there for the second and third generation appreciate the environment and the place where they have been brought up. Since the environment seems to play more and more of a part in our deliberations about the countryside, it is important that by passing the Bill we do not stop the continuity of father to son or father to daughter. With that, I welcome the Bill, but it has some worries for us.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, we have listened to excellent speeches from both sides of the Chamber. They have all been very constructive and helpful. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on his maiden speech. I must say that he is very fortunate in

521
being young, tall and handsome; he is very able and is capable of delivering a very short speech but one that is to the point on the issue today. I wish him the best of luck in his deliberations in this House for many, many years to come.
Each year we hold Liberal conferences in different parts of Britain; sometimes we go to Scotland; sometimes they are held in England, and sometimes in Wales. We have a "Welsh night", and on that particular night sing hymns, songs and arias. Every time we sing the old Lloyd George swansong, "The Land belongs to the People", which we repeat and repeat. Whether it has any effect on our policies these days I am not so sure, but we still sing it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded me of how things were at the turn of the century. My grandfather was a tenant farmer. He and my grandmother reared a family of nine, including my mother. She told me many times that my father had to vote for a particular candidate at the general election because if he did not do so he was afraid that he would be turned out. My grandmother did not do the same; she voted for another party. (There is no need to pursue which parties they voted for.) Those are the days that have gone by. Today, things have changed dramatically. In Wales in particular we have more owner occupiers than we have tenants. We are very proud of that—although in the majority of cases they have very small farms and they are part-time farmers.
We have to make sure of one thing: we are here to try to persuade landlords, to encourage them, to let their land. We cannot force them. It is their land. Therefore we have to introduce legislation. It should be our main objective to introduce legislation that will persuade landowners to let their land to the new young entrants that we have in this country. I am in favour of the reform. I declare my interest, as I have done many times before. I am a farmer and an occupier, and I live on the land. In my view that is the best occupation possible.
Today I hope that the Minister and others will forgive me if I "diversify" a little. I feel very strongly about the smallholding tenants in this country. In England, there were 5,044 tenants of local authority smallholdings as at 31st March 1993. At that date, the total area of land held by local authorities in England for smallholding purposes was 133,816 hectares. Looking at the three leading county councils in England, we should congratulate Cambridgeshire council: it has 16,914 hectares of land let to farmers. In Lincolnshire, the council has 10,125 hectares. In Norfolk 9,405 hectares are let. We should also congratulate Hampshire and Wiltshire, which have acquired another 189 hectares and 55 hectares respectively over the past few years.
What worries me more than anything is that we are to have local government reorganisation next year, especially in Wales. The Dyfed County Council has a very proud record of not selling a single council holding in that area. But next year or the year after, Dyfed County Council will come to an end, and revert back to three unitary authorities, of which I am in favour: Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. I would like an assurance from the Government that they
522
will do everything in their power to make sure that once the councils return to being unitary authorities—in Wales next year and in other parts of the country later—this policy will continue, and that the Government will urge the county council to carry on helping the local authorities and, if at all possible, give them extra financial assistance in order that more land could be bought by councils and let to young entrants.
As I said, I am in favour of reforming the Agricultural Tenancies Bill. We shall have the opportunity to debate and discuss the legislation at Committee level. There is one union which is against the present proposals. Although I am supportive of the NFU, the Tenants' Association, the young farmers' organisation and all the others which are united in their deliberations to reform the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, the Farmers' Union of Wales is not. I feel duty bound, as 40 years ago I was one of the founder members of the Farmers' Union of Wales and I have its brief with me, to quote a few passages from it in order to be fair to every side in this argument:
"FUW policy is working-life tenancies to end when the tenant reaches 65 years of age".
There is a lot to be said for that policy.
"(Such tenancies are frequently used by County Councils when letting their smallholdings.) Fiscal incentives are also required, plus a close scrutiny of the way grazing agreements and Gladstone v. Bower agreements are currently used".
The union goes on to say that,
"It must be stressed that farming is a long-term enterprise"—
we all tend to agree with that—
"particularly in the case of a traditional livestock farm. One has to plan ahead and make considerable investment in stock, machinery, quota rights etc. With short term lets, tenants would face constant uncertainty, unable to plan ahead.
Looking into the 'crystal ball', FUW believes that the established farmer would gain, resulting in fewer farmers, larger holdings, and little hope for the young farmer/new entrant, to gain access to the industry. Banks could not support an entrant to the industry who only had a short-term agreement.
There is a danger that, with short-term lets, onerous terms could be imposed. There is also a danger that entrants would accept any terms in their desperation to enter the industry (as witnessed by the high number of applicants for Council holdings).
If it were possible to let farms and land on a short-term basis, then we fear that land could be exploited for short-term gain, but would result in long-term detriment to the land. This might well have repercussions for the environment and the countryside in general".
The union says finally that,
"The farming industry provides the backbone for communities in rural areas. It is our view that, under the proposed new regime, the identity of such communities would be changed and the days of the small, traditional farm would be numbered".
I hope that, given the views of the farmers of Wales—although I disagree with some of their points, there are also merits in what they say—many of us on this side of the House will perhaps consider tabling amendments to coincide with the minority view on this occasion.
6 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I should like to begin by offering our congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Yarborough, on his maiden speech. They may be

523
somewhat belated, coming from the much maligned Opposition, but we congratulate him on what I am sure all your Lordships agree was a witty and erudite speech.
The Bill has the support of most sections of the agricultural industry, but there are certain exceptions. However, as such, it deserves to be seriously considered by your Lordships' House and I am sure that it will be. My noble friend Lord Carter has said that at Committee stage we shall table amendments in an attempt both to improve the Bill and to make it clearer. I am certain that other Members of your Lordships' House will do the same.
Perhaps more than most we are concerned that the Bill appears to be drafted on the assumption that tenants have a legal capacity to trade and to do as they wish unimpeded and unhindered by other factors. That is essentially the heart of the law of contract. But I respectfully suggest to the House that such considerations need serious qualification when one takes into account agricultural business tenancies. The rules which matter are not the rules devised by the Ministry of Agriculture and they are not rules arising from the laws of supply and demand. They are in fact the rules devised by the consent of the Council of Ministers on the basis of recommendations made to it by the Commission of the European Union. Those rules, regarding all aspects of farming, whether they be milk quotas, cereal production, stocking densities or whatever, dramatically affect the capacity of the farmer to farm. Therefore they seriously affect his ability to enter into tenancy agreements of a business character.
The landlords have welcomed the Bill. One appreciates the genuineness of that welcome. They would wish to see more rented land. Undoubtedly they would also wish to see more land available for rent at higher rates of rent. One of the submissions that we have received from one of the groups interested in this matter is that it would not wish to see regular rent reviews in which the rents consistently moved upwards. Again, account would have to be taken of factors such as prices negotiated in Brussels and, in particular, variables such as the important question of the conversion of the European currency unit green rates.
Young farmers are hoping—quite rightly in our opinion—that the passage of the Bill will increase the availability of farms for them. We are producing from our colleges and elsewhere a very large number of highly qualified people for whom the prospects of becoming farmers in their own right are not great. To the extent that the Bill gives them hope, their welcome for it is understandable.
In his peroration, the Minister seemed to assume that the law of supply and demand would be unleashed by the Bill and that we live in an era when free competition is to be stimulated and encouraged. But as was said, the fact of the matter is that Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome and the objectives set under that article for the common agricultural policy, are dominant in this matter and must at all times be taken into consideration. We know that the common agricultural policy determines what we may grow, rear or milk as well as what we are paid for doing so. In addition, there are set-aside, quotas and stocking densities. Indeed, the only remaining
524
variable seems to be the weather. As Mark Twain is supposed to have said, "If you don't like the weather in England, wait a minute." I cannot speak for the weather in Wales, but we have certainly heard a great deal from Wales in the course of this debate.
When the common agricultural policy rules have to be uniform in 12 member states—soon maybe in 15 or 16 member states —where land tenure law is anything but common, taking into account such things as the Code Napoléon and so on, to draft an Agricultural Tenancies Bill without reference to the CAP is a considerable achievement. It reflects Her Majesty's Government's obsession with the free market and market forces. Where those genuinely exist, we say "Give them free rein"; where they do not exist, in our opinion it is dangerous all round to pretend that they do.
Milk quotas are a classic example of rule by Brussels based on the original advocacy of quotas by the United Kingdom. The Milk Marketing Board was abolished to prepare the way for a non-existent free market; one where Her Majesty's Government now seek "freedom" to buy unused quota from other member states. If, in addition, for example, the use of bovine somatotropin is legitimised throughout the Community during the currency of the present quotas, one can see more milk from fewer cows and new uses being sought for pasture land. That is but one example of non-commercial variables.
On the assumption that the Bill provides what Her Majesty's Government hopes for, will there be spin-offs? For example, will investment in agricultural land become more attractive to, say, pension funds, because of fixed term tenancies, or will such funds be put off by the prospect of more public access to land of which they are the owners?
The prospect of change of use is an intriguing part of the Bill. Clauses 17 and 18 require tenants seeking permission to get the landlord's consent to be eligible for compensation for improvements. There does not appear to be any appeal against the landlord's refusal of a tenant's desire to apply for a planning consent. The effect of that is to confer rights on the landlord at a time when, as the Bill itself recognises and as the common agricultural policy changes now encourage, changes of use are part of modern farming and are likely to increase.
In the matter of applications for planning consents, will landlords be able to apply and can third parties also make application? If so, it does not require much foresight to see such applications as farm business tenancies near the end of their agreed span. If big money is at stake, and sometimes that is so under planning law, the final years of a tenancy could be made difficult for a farmer. This could be compounded by the desire of local authorities to bring more of agricultural practice within the scope of planning laws. There appears to be some encouragement for that within certain government departments in this country.
Privity of contract is not a term much encountered in dealing with farm tenancies. It is an issue of considerable importance to certain retailers who were

525
disappointed that a Bill on the subject was not promised in the gracious Speech. Privity of contract may be something for exploration at a later stage of the Bill.
A related matter is the development of a landlord and tenant code, which was instigated by the Department of the Environment this summer. I should like to ask the Minister whether MAFF is taking part in this review. We believe such a code to be vitally necessary under the proposals contained in the Bill.
Reference has already been made to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and its views about codes. We on these Benches believe that the Government themselves have a specific responsibility for such a code; indeed we may table an amendment to that effect at the Committee or Report stages of the Bill.
As we said, the Bill has been welcomed on many sides of the industry. As my noble friend Lord Carter said, we shall seek to improve the Bill at all stages where such improvements are possible. We already have support for some of the amendments from organisations which support the Bill. We believe that certain of the amendments that we shall table on our own behalf and argue under our own auspices will commend themselves to your Lordships' House.
6.10 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we heard in this debate, as I felt sure that we would, many perceptive and learned contributions which demonstrated once again the wealth of wisdom and expertise on this subject which exists in your Lordships' House. Before answering some of the points raised, I should like to add my own warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Yarborough on his maiden speech. It was well-informed, lucid and highly relevant to the problems of the agricultural tenanted sector. I am delighted that he chose this occasion on which to make his maiden speech and I hope that in years to come he will have warm feelings not only about the debate, but also about the Bill and its effects. I look forward to hearing many more contributions from my noble friend in the future.
I very much welcome the support for the aims of the Bill expressed by so many speakers in today's debate. Many noble Lords made the case for the Bill more eloquently than I could do. We worked hard to produce a Bill along the lines that the industry wants. I believe that we succeeded. I therefore confess to a certain amount of disappointment that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite were not able to join in the wide degree of support for the Bill. I suspect that they may be prisoners of policies developed in the past by others in their party—policies which have not yet been modernised to take account of the current situation on the ground or of the current consensus in the industry on the need for change. I feel sure that noble Lords present today will know from their regular day-to-day contacts with people involved in agriculture that this reform is seen as a high priority. I hope that in later stages we can satisfy noble Lords present, including noble Lords opposite, that we have got the details right.
526
Although I referred a moment ago to "consensus", I should acknowledge—as a number of noble Lords mentioned, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Elis-Thomas, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Geraint—that one industry body opposes the Bill and continues to advocate a statutory minimum term. I refer to the Farmers' Union of Wales. I should like to refer to one statistic in relation to tenancies in Wales. Every year the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers carries out a survey of tenanted farms in England and Wales. That survey, regarded as authoritative, covers not all, but a high proportion of new lettings each year. From the latest survey covering 1993 one can see how many new lettings have taken place as full tenancies, succession tenancies, short-term lets and so forth. I am therefore able to tell your Lordships how many unqualified, fresh lettings the survey found in Wales last year which were granted to tenants unconnected with the estate. In the whole of Wales, north and south, the survey found precisely one such tenancy. That may be an under-estimate because the CAAV survey does not cover every possible letting. But it is astonishing that an organisation whose members include many existing tenants—who will not be affected by the Bill—can continue to advocate a 15-year minimum term in these circumstances. It is surely clear that continuation of lifetime security of tenure or the imposition of a statutory minimum term would simply perpetuate that state of affairs. It would mean slamming the door shut on prospective tenants. If we followed the line advocated by the FUW, then they may as well start advising their younger members to buy tickets for the national lottery because they probably stand more chance of winning the jackpot than of obtaining a full agricultural tenancy.
I fully accept that the Bill will not solve all the problems of new entrants at a stroke. But it will at least open the door instead of slamming it shut. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned, this summer the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors carried out some research among its members on the extent to which they expected new farms and land to come forward for letting if our proposed reforms are enacted. The results showed that we could expect nearly 900,000 acres or 360,000 hectares of land to be let through chartered surveyors under farm business tenancies. That would increase the area of let land by around 10 per cent. of its current level.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, claimed that the RICS survey showed that under the Bill most farms would be let for five-year terms. In fact, that is not what the survey said. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out, the figures were: for five-year terms, 86 farms; for 10 years, 64 farms, and over 10 years, 53 farms. The overall proportion, therefore, was 56 per cent. to be let for 10 years or longer; that is to say, 56 per cent. of equipped farms are likely to come forward for letting.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Will he be kind enough to give the House the number of bare land units to be let for five years to enable us to compare the total? I can save him the trouble. If we add the whole lot together—

527
equipped farms and bare land units—we obtain a total of 803 units or farms, of which 453 would be let for five years, and that is more than 50 per cent. of the total. It depends whether one takes the equipped farms or the bare land units.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. My point still stands. While I accept what he says, it is the equipped farms which reveal more tellingly the extent of the intentions in the market.
My noble friend Lord Courtown expressed doubts in relation to the reliability of the RICS survey. I am sorry that he is not wholly convinced by it when he himself is a member of that institution. However, I am grateful for his support on all the other aspects of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked how many extra acres were likely to be available for letting over the next five years. The RICS survey was based on what is likely to happen within two years and we must take account of that. It found nearly 1 million acres of new land, which is a significant amount. Over five years the figure may well be more than that. Indeed, some owner occupiers whose views were not canvassed by the survey may be persuaded to let their land, and that would boost the figure even further.
The noble Lord also commented on the opinion expressed by Grant Thornton that tax benefits of contract farming will outweigh the benefits of the Bill. One must take note of that; it is a respected firm. But Grant Thornton is only one firm, whereas the RICS canvas all surveyors' firms. The majority of surveyors and industry organisations, and particularly young farmers who have a major interest in the whole question, are all more confident about the likelihood of success in stimulating lettings. One must be encouraged by that.
We must constantly bear in mind that a high proportion of current lettings are for terms of one to two years under Gladstone v. Bower tenancies. If we do so, we can then see how the Bill will give many existing tenants the chance of obtaining a more secure tenancy as well as opening up new opportunities. If there is a knock-down argument to the criticisms voiced by the Benches opposite, it is surely that one.
Some people have claimed, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that banks may not be inclined to lend money to tenants on fixed term tenancies. There are two answers to that point. First, it is likely that many new tenancies will be for 10 years or more if we are to trust the indicators. Secondly, I contend—for what it is worth I speak as a former banker—that lenders will not look just at the length of the tenancies. They will look also at the assets of the business and on the ability of the borrower. The latter factor is of course a subjective judgment; but where the tenant borrowed money and invested in an improvement with his landlord's consent, the Bill guarantees him full compensation at the end of the tenancy for the value of the improvement at that time. That is an important factor which I am sure banks will take into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, questioned whether the Bill would, in practice, halt the decline in lettings. I shall simply point out an analogy to him. The revival in the residential rented sector followed a long decline.
528
After the 1988 Housing Act brought in market rents and short-hold tenancies, the number of households renting from private landlords increased by 10 per cent. in the following five years.
There was, apart from the RICS survey to which I have just referred, a CLA survey of landowners in 1989 which suggested that freedom to choose the length of a tenancy could lead to a 33 per cent. increase in new tenancies over a five-year period. That, again, is a helpful pointer. I fully appreciate the sensitivities which were referred to by the noble Lord but I can assure him that our aim, too, is to encourage successful tenanted farming.
My noble friend Lord Stanley predicted that under the Government's proposals existing tenants would take on more land rather than the new entrants. It is something of a counsel of despair to say that we should take no action if existing tenants might benefit the most. We want to benefit existing tenants as well as new entrants. Both of them need more opportunities. Besides, the National Federation of Young Farmers fully supports the Bill, so it clearly believes that its members will benefit. I share that belief.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the provisions concerning arbitration on compensation. I believe that the noble Lord's points on compensation are covered in the Bill. For example, an arbitrator will be able to take account of the circumstances of the landlord—for instance, whether he can afford to pay any eventual compensation—when deciding whether to give approval for a tenant to make an improvement that the landlord might not necessarily want. I am sure that we can deal with that kind of detail at later stages of our debates.
The noble Lord also expressed his concerns on housing for tenants. Under the terms of the Bill many young people may be more secure than they are at the moment. As we have heard, the recent RICS survey showed that more than half the lettings of equipped farms were likely to be for 10 years or more. We should compare that with the current situation where 75 per cent. of new lettings are for terms of fewer than five years. In future, tenants will be able to make their own judgments when taking on a tenancy. They will know the term date from the start, and with more tenancies available they should have fewer problems finding a new tenancy to take on. I ask the party opposite in particular to reflect on that point before pursuing their reservations about the Bill to subsequent stages.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said that the Government should encourage county councils not to sell their county council smallholdings. The legal position, as I am sure he will know, is that it would be a decision of whatever successor authority took over responsibility from the county council—Dyfed in the case to which the noble Lord referred. I am a little surprised to hear a Liberal Democrat spokesman asking central government to put their own advice above local democratic decisions. As regards smallholdings generally, our reforms would free up the market and make it possible for tenants to move on from county farms instead of staying until retirement. As the noble Lord will know, that is the norm at present.

529
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, mentioned the importance of diversification. I can assure him that it is indeed an aim of the Bill to allow more flexibility for tenant farmers to diversify than they currently have, subject to whatever their tenancy agreements allow. I fully agree with him that that will contribute to the rural economy and help to preserve what I think the noble Lord called "security of income". I am very much in sympathy with the sentiments he expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, emphasised the importance of environmental sustainability and suggested that there should be specific reference in the Bill to promoting environmental benefits. Landlords will have the option of drawing up tenancy agreements to further environmental aims, unlike the situation under the 1986 Act. The fact is that when it comes to mandatory measures it is difficult for the Government to make prescriptions. It is even more difficult for the Government to enforce those prescriptions. But one thing is clear: environmental gains and sustainability will not be promoted by a perpetuation of Gladstone v. Bower-type agreements, as we have at the moment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hampden, expressed some doubt as to whether the Bill will help the cause of the environment. I am pleased that the noble Viscount concluded that, overall, he probably welcomed the Bill. On his point concerning the regard paid by second and third generation tenants for the environment, I agree that we would not wish to discourage that in any way. But, equally, we do not necessarily get the best results by having, as it were, a closed shop with no new faces coming into the industry. That is one of the reasons why we feel that the balance should be adjusted.
My noble friend Lord Addison and the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked whether the Government could not issue advice or a code of practice on conservation targets or practices. I need time to reflect on what the coverage of such advice would be and who the intended recipients might be. I can say to them that the Bill will allow new tenancies to incorporate more in the way of environmental activities. That is something we can only welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that tenants should have the right to renew the tenancy at the end of the agreed term, as tenants do under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The simple answer to that point is that a right to renew would defeat the purpose of fixed-term tenancies. Without freedom of contract and without fixed terms, landlords will simply not offer land to rent. Besides, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the parties can simply apply to the courts for permission to opt out of the right to renewal, so that right is not always available to commercial tenants. If the tenant is good, the landlord is likely to want to renew. That, I suggest, is a much better basis for a continuing and healthy relationship between the parties.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret suggested that livestock quotas could be passed to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. Livestock quotas, as he will know, do not remain attached to the holding because they belong to producers. While there are those who regret that fact, it is not something over which the Government
530
have discretion. It is laid down in EC regulations. My noble friend also asked in particular about Clause 23(3), which refers to compensation at the end of successive tenancies. I can understand his concern but I think it is based on a misunderstanding. The clause gives an option for the landlord and tenant to settle up on claims for compensation at the end of the first tenancy. Where they do so, the tenants cannot claim a second amount of compensation on the same items at the end of the next tenancy. I hope that that will reassure my noble friend.
My noble friend Lord Peel expressed a worry about the provisions in the Bill for compensation for intangible improvements. I welcome my noble friend's support for the Bill and all the constructive remarks that he made. As to his concerns about compensation, the industry agreement recognises that tenants should receive compensation for intangible improvements that they have secured for the holding. If a tenant has invested time and money in securing a planning permission which adds value to the holding, there is no reason why, provided he has the landlord's consent, he should not be compensated. But doubtless this is a matter which, again, we can discuss further at the Committee stage.
A number of noble Lords, including, notably, my noble friend Lord Stanley, have wondered about the effectiveness of the proposed reforms without fiscal changes. When I have the privilege of standing at the Dispatch Box I speak for the Government, but this is one occasion when I have to say that this particular matter is one for my right honourable friend the Chancellor, although, as has been said, he may not see the record of this debate before he gives his Budget speech tomorrow. But we should note that the prescription which is apparently on offer from the Benches opposite would be to increase inheritance tax on owner-occupied land. I am not sure that many noble Lords or many farmers would find that a particularly appealing proposition.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I apologise for having to continually intervene, but let us put the record straight. We have not said anything of that sort at all. We have merely said that we shall be prepared to consult in order to consider the possibility of inheritance tax relief for the owners of let land as long as that can be deemed to be fiscally neutral—in other words, that it will not cost the Treasury any more. As the noble Earl knows, there are many, many loopholes in tax law not only as regards inheritance tax, but generally. All we have said is that as long as there is not any extra cost to the Treasury, we are prepared to consider the matter and no more than that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure that that will be helpful to all those who read the account of this debate in Hansard.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to problems of privity of contract. I do not expect significant problems with the likely length of terms for agricultural tenancies. The parties have the option of using break clauses to end a tenancy early or of agreeing terms for the surrender of a tenancy. The Government intend to bring forward proposals for the reform of the law on

531
privity of contract; but in doing so I am sure that they will wish to cover all types of tenancies and not simply agricultural tenancies.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also commented that there was no reference to CAP rules in the Bill. One particular virtue of that is that it provides more flexibility to adapt to future policy changes whether they be from Brussels, Whitehall or wherever. Parties will be able to respond to circumstances by adjusting their own tenancy agreements rather than being bound by the detailed tenancy legislation.
There is general agreement—even, I venture to suggest, among noble Lords opposite—that the continuing decline of the tenanted sector calls for government action. We have brought forward a set of coherent proposals that command a wider degree of support from all sides of the industry than most people
532
would have thought possible. There is a consensus for change that the Labour Party cannot deny. I say to them that if they really want to help new entrants to farming, as they claim to do, they should join with us and with the rest of the industry and support the Bill. The new leader of the Labour Party has spoken of dealing with issues on their merits instead of routinely opposing every government measure on principle. The Bill provides an ideal opportunity for noble Lords opposite to demonstrate that approach and, by supporting these reforms, to benefit the younger generation of fanners and the future of British agriculture. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before seven o'clock.

  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  HIV/AIDS PREVENTION AND CARE: FUNDING
  HIV/AIDS PREVENTION AND CARE: FUNDING
  CSCE REVIEW MEETING: HUMAN DIMENSION WORKING GROUP
  CSCE REVIEW MEETING: HUMAN DIMENSION WORKING GROUP
  MR. KALPA RANJAN CHAKMA
  MR. KALPA RANJAN CHAKMA
  IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
  IRAQ: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
  PERGAU DAM JUDGMENT
  PERGAU DAM JUDGMENT
  COUNTER-PROLIFERATION: FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS
  COUNTER-PROLIFERATION: FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS
  US/RUSSIAN BILATERAL DEFENCE EXERCISE
  US/RUSSIAN BILATERAL DEFENCE EXERCISE
  DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS
  DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS
  INCAPACITY BENEFIT: MEDICAL TEST
  INCAPACITY BENEFIT: MEDICAL TEST
  CHILDREN AND VIOLENCE: DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  CHILDREN AND VIOLENCE: DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  BNFL DECOMMISSIONING COSTS: APPORTIONMENT
  BNFL DECOMMISSIONING COSTS: APPORTIONMENT
  POST OFFICE: FUTURE
  POST OFFICE: FUTURE
  PIT BULL TERRIERS
  PIT BULL TERRIERS
  UNEMPLOYMENT MEASUREMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT MEASUREMENT
  A.27 POLEGATE-LEWES IMPROVEMENT
  A.27 POLEGATE-LEWES IMPROVEMENT