Sitting of 7 December 1995

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 14 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Campbell Soups
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what correspondence he has received from Campbell Soups about location in Northern Ireland. [3029]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I have no record of an approach from Campbell Soups.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the company, Campbell Soups, comes knocking on the Minister's door, he should not believe a single word that it says as all it does is tell lies. In my constituency, that US company with a turnover of $6 billion a year bought a highly profitable factory in Maryport. Within 11 weeks, it announced its closure, causing immense concern in my constituency. Will the Minister join me in asking the people of Northern Ireland to boycott Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products in the supermarkets? The company used the market place to take its decision, and we should now let the consumers repay it for what it is doing.
    Mr. Ancram: I have no intention of asking the people of Northern Ireland to do anything of the sort. If an application is made to my colleague in Northern Ireland it will be looked at on its merits.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the Campbell Soups company has a large facility in King's Lynn in my constituency which employs many people and is an excellent employer? Obviously, the people who work in that factory have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and the people who work in the factory in his constituency, but they are concerned about their jobs and future. Is the Minister also aware that if the Campbell Soups company wanted to invest in Northern Ireland it would be a good employer?
    Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend—none of us likes to see job losses, wherever they occur. I repeat to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours): if an application is made to my colleague, Lady Denton, it will be looked at on its merits.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on developments in the peace process. [3030]
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further meetings have been arranged to continue the peace initiative. [3032]
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the Northern Ireland peace process. [3037]
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about recent progress in the peace negotiations. [3038]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Last Tuesday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, announced the launch of a twin-track process to make progress in parallel on the decommissioning issue and on all-party preparatory talks.
    Senator George Mitchell has been appointed as chairman-designate of the international body by both Governments. The two other members are General John de Chastelain, chief of the Canadian defence staff, and Mr. Harri Holkeri, a former Prime Minister of Finland.

    477
    I wrote to the Northern Ireland parties on 1 December inviting them to begin the preparatory talks. The Tanaiste, Mr. Spring, has issued parallel invitations.
    Mr. Stott: The Secretary of State will be more aware than anyone else of President Clinton's hugely successful visit to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will have heard, as I did, the President of the United States putting the weight of his office behind the twin-track proposals. What will be the terms of reference for Senator Mitchell's committee?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The terms of reference are set out in the communiqué, which I have in front of me, but which would take too long to read out now. The terms of reference are set out in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the communiqué, which I think the hon. Gentleman will find in the Library of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State explain how it is that the Government have recently signed a peace treaty in Bosnia and lifted an arms embargo, although there has been no decommissioning before the signing of the treaty? Why is it necessary in the dispute in Northern Ireland and Ireland for decommissioning to occur before a treaty is agreed? Why do the Government operate double standards on different peace treaties throughout the world?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is the hon. Gentleman who is uncharacteristically operating double standards. He regards himself as a good democrat. In a democracy one cannot expect people to sit round a table or in any other formation to discuss the future of part of their democracy unless they have full confidence that everybody claiming to participate is there exclusively by reason of the votes that he commands, and not by reason of any armaments that he can discard.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some Conservative Members have not been at all happy with the American President apparently interfering in the Northern Ireland peace process? However, I acknowledge that President Clinton made an extremely positive contribution last week during his visit, particularly because of the timely and powerful message that he gave to all the terrorists there that their day is over. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the robust and sound stance that he has taken on the issue of terrorist weapons and decommissioning.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There had earlier been some misunderstanding as to whether the interest of the United States was, in some degree, interference, but that never was the intention or expectation. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing to the deep significance of what the President said. Speaking to those who still wish to use violence for political objectives, he said:
    "You are the past; your day is over".
    That has rather an interesting resonance. He continued:
    "Violence has no place at the table of democracy, and no role in the future of this land."
    The sooner that that is accepted on all sides, the better.
    Mr. Hain: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is his view that some paramilitary arms need to be decommissioned before all parties can enter full and
    478
    substantive negotiations? If an alternative is produced that engenders sufficient trust and confidence on all sides to bring all parties to such talks, will he study it closely?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the key to this question is confidence that everybody who claims to participate is there on a solely democratic basis and in fulfilment of what paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration required. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear time and again that we can see no means by which that confidence can be engendered, save by the fulfilment of the three Washington conditions that I stipulated in March this year. If some other means become apparent by which that confidence could be engendered, naturally we would wish to consider it. I emphasise that we cannot see any at present.
    Mr. Trimble: If and when we move towards any form of talks process, there will be a more precise focus on the policies of the Government. In that context, can I refer the Secretary of State to the recent statement by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in which he said that the Government stood foursquare behind the Union with Scotland, and that that Union was a matter not only for the people of Scotland, but for the people of all the Union? How does the Secretary of State reconcile his position of disinterested neutrality and his close co-operation with a foreign Government who are subject to a constitutional imperative to destroy that Union?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman does less than justice to what was said at the time of the launching of the joint framework document in February this year, when Mr. Bruton made it clear that, as part of an overall settlement, he would put to the Irish people, in a referendum, proposals that would mean that there was no further territorial claim—such as undoubtedly exists at the moment in the Irish constitution—to that part of the island of Ireland that is part of the United Kingdom in international and domestic law. That is the first point.
    Secondly, it is very important that all those matters should be available for discussion during the political track of a twin-track process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and I, for what that is worth—have made it clear time and again that we very much support the Union, supported as it also is by the majority of people living in Northern Ireland. The key to the understanding of the Downing street declaration is that both the Irish Government and our own stipulate in it that there will he no future change in the status of Northern Ireland, save by the wishes of most people who live in Northern Ireland.
    Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's statement that his working assumption was that the ceasefire was permanent, has the Secretary of State heard or seen reports of the interview with Mitchell McLaughlin, Sinn Fein party national chairman, who, when asked about the permanence of the peace, said that it was not possible to say peace was permanent because the conditions that led to 25 years of violence still existed? When asked why the IRA would not decommission weapons, he said:
    "The reality is that nobody can say that these guns will not be used again".
    What will the Secretary of State tell the people of Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I will tell them what I have told them on many occasions before: that we do not have a complete peace, by reason of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just recited, and many others. There is, for instance, a passage in Mr. Adams' book, published in May this year, in which he reasserts the right of the Irish people to the "armed struggle". That is why it seems to us, and to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, essential, if confidence is to be established, that Sinn Fein in particular be wholly committed to peaceful and democratic means.
    Then a beginning must be made to decommissioning, to signify good faith and the start of a process. There must also be a commitment to the principle of decommissioning and a method of achieving it. I very much hope that the first track—decommissioning—of the twin-track process will help to allow that confidence to be engendered.
    Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware that much has been spoken and written about President Clinton's words during his welcome visit to the people of the north of Ireland. Not so much notice, however, has been taken of the words spoken, or perhaps not spoken, by the people of Northern Ireland during that visit, although they have made it clear that they want two things: lasting peace, and a new, agreed political dispensation in the north of Ireland.
    Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell the House what dynamic the two Governments are going to instil in the multilateral discussions that are to precede the all-party talks? Can he confirm that such a dynamic, which is essential, will lead to real negotiations and will put the political process back on the subject of politics, not the question of arms?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: When the Prime Minister held a press conference last Wednesday week to announce agreement on the communiqué, he said that the twin-track process was intended to impart new momentum to the peace process. I am sure that it will; it is the means by which the Governments will achieve that.
    Secondly, I warmly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about President Clinton's visit. It was a most extraordinary and moving series of occasions. I certainly agree that the people of Northern Ireland, if not articulating what they meant, shouted—nay, roared—it.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. and learned Friend made it absolutely clear to the chairman of the international body, former Senator George Mitchell, that his remit is purely to look at illegally held weapons, not at security weapons held by Government forces? I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend watched the "Newsnight" programme last week in which Mr. Mitchell leant back laughing in his chair and said that he would be perfectly happy to look at Government weapons too. Surely that is not what we have in mind?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can assure my hon. Friend that the communiqué uses language which accurately reflects what both Governments intend—that the arms and armaments which shall be the subject of study and advice by the commission relate to those held illegally by paramilitary organisations and do not include constitutionally held arms north or south of the border. I am aware of the "Newsnight" programme; my hon. Friend
    480
    will, I think, agree that it was broadcast only a very few hours after the agreement had been reached. It may have been the case that at that stage Senator Mitchell, whose appointment had not been completed, had not fully read, read at all or been shown the terms of the communiqué. I do not know, but there is no doubt about its content.
    Ms Mowlam: The Opposition congratulate both Governments on the launch of the twin-track process. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the public desire for a lasting peace so vividly expressed in Northern Ireland last week during President Clinton's visit? Interestingly, paramilitary punishment beatings on both sides of the divide stopped during that period, which is indicative that they could soon stop altogether. As to reflecting the feelings exhibited during President Clinton's visit, does the Secretary of State agree that it is up to the political parties in the preparatory talks to reach widespread agreement through dialogue on the way to proceed to all-party, substantive negotiations?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her opening remarks. I much agree with her about the significance of the intermission in punishment beatings at a time when it would have been politically inexpedient for the persons who carry them out for political purposes to have continued doing so during President Clinton's visit. If those individuals could stop the beatings at that time, let us hear no more about the inability to control them at any other time. As to the last part of the hon. Lady's question, I join her in hoping that the political parties will take full advantage of the political track—of the preparatory talks that can take place.
    The hon. Lady rightly used the word "dialogue", which is intended to mean that there shall be talks in any format that seems convenient. They need not necessarily be around a table. One-to-one talks are still a dialogue. That is an important point to make, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for enabling me to make it.

    Royal Victoria Hospital
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be the effect of the funding of Royal Victoria hospital capital projects on other capital developments in the health service; and if he will make a statement. [3031]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): The Royal Victoria hospital scheme is one of a number of major capital schemes currently being taken forward. Others are at Causeway in Coleraine, the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children, at Craigavon and at the Altnagelvin hospital in Londonderry. Together with a programme for health and safety improvements, that commits the bulk of resources over the next few years. In line with the Chancellor's Budget statement, I will be looking more and more to private finance to take forward new schemes.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that it is rather strange that wholesale capital investment went ahead at the Royal Victoria hospital before the McKenna report was published, bearing in mind the fact that the Minister did not release funds for the development of Belvoir Park hospital, which would have been much more minimal, until the report appeared? Is the Minister aware of continuing anxiety that the Ulster hospital, which has

    481
    been waiting a considerable time for capital finance, is still waiting? Will he re-examine the private finance initiative concept and say whether it will be applied to capital work or specialty services?
    Mr. Moss: The Royal Victoria capital project was agreed and endorsed by the Eastern health board and by Dr. McKenna's reorganisation project. A business case has been made for the Ulster hospital and it is currently with the Department of Finance. As to Belvoir Park, I have commissioned a report under the Chief Medical Officer to investigate cancer services in Northern Ireland. When I have that report before me, I shall make a decision regarding capital requirements at hospitals providing cancer services.
    Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware of the grave disappointment that his answers will cause the people of Down, who for three decades have been waiting for a modest capital scheme to improve the Downe group of hospitals? The injustice is that Downe, having passed efficiency and business tests with flying colours, is now subjected to a private finance initiative to which the Royal Victoria, in respect of a sum of £64 million, was not subjected. I ask the Minister to provide Downe with the modest sum required, over a three-year period, say, to improve a hospital complex that is 250 years old.
    Mr. Moss: The business case for Downe hospital has been passed by the management executive and is currently with the Department of Finance. We shall then move to testing for the private finance initiative. If no private finance is forthcoming, we will have to consider providing funds on the normal basis to progress the capital scheme at Downe hospital.
    Mr. Dowd: Will the Minister confirm that the effective use of capital investment in the national health service in Northern Ireland remains a priority for his Department? If so, will he comment on the fact that when the new Waterside hospital at Gransna park was opened only four years ago by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is now Minister of State, Foreign Office, it was described as the jewel in the crown of the Western health board, but it is now to close, along with Strabane hospital in Roe valley in Limavady, as 173 NHS care-for-the-elderly beds are replaced by 65 private nursing home beds? Will the Minister give an assurance that no future expenditure of precious NHS capital resources will be wasted in a few short years, as they have been at Waterside?
    Mr. Moss: The total sum available over the next five years for capital development of hospitals in Northern Ireland comes to £240 million, which is £40 million each and every year. We are considering the private finance initiative for the hospitals that are not in the programme. As I have said, it is a full and comprehensive programme. We are out for consultation on the closures at Strabane. We shall be making our decisions when we have the benefits that will derive from the consultation process.

    Employment
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the prospects for employment in Northern Ireland. [3034]
    Mr. Ancram: The outlook is very encouraging. Employment is at record levels. Output and trade are increasing and tourism is booming. Business confidence is very high and there have been substantial inward investment successes recently. With continuing peace, we can look forward to this excellent progress being maintained.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that over the past two-and-a-half years unemployment has fallen by 18.5 per cent. in Northern Ireland and that unemployment at the long-term end fell by fully 17 per cent.? Does he agree that the increasing employment opportunities flowing from the improved economic condition bodes well for long-term stability in the Province?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who rightly talks about the significant progress that has been made to reduce unemployment. It is interesting to note that employment is at a record level of 566,550. Even more encouraging is inward investment. Since the ceasefire 14 projects worth £288 million, with the potential to create 4,000 jobs, have been announced. Even more significantly, in the month of November five projects worth £153 million and over 2,000 jobs were announced. That indicates the strength of the Northern Ireland economy and the hope that we all have in it for the future.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that there is a sound foundation on which to build better future prospects for employment in Northern Ireland, and that we can expect with permanent peace more inward investment to take advantage of our excellent national and international air and sea links and our good road and rail links to efficiently managed harbours at Larne, Belfast, Warrenpoint and Londonderry? Most important of all, there is the opportunity for those investing in Northern Ireland to harness the skills, talents and high education qualifications of an industrious work force, which is awaiting opportunity. Will the Minister assure us that there will be continued financial support available to encourage further inward investment?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We certainly will continue to encourage inward investment. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State visited Larne the other day with the hon. Gentleman and was most impressed by what he saw.
    It is important, too, to recognise that peace is an important ingredient for inward investment. It underlines the importance of reaching an agreed settlement to underpin that peace. At the end of the day, that will give a greater boost to inward investment than anything else.
    It is worth recording that it is the responsibility of us all to ensure that we sell all the good aspects of Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman has just done, rather than talking, as we sometimes tend to do, about the bad aspects. Last week, when President Clinton was there, the eyes of the world through the television media had a wonderful picture of the opportunities that exist within Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Atkins: Although the peace process has played a significant and welcome part in creating new jobs in Northern Ireland, should not the agencies, such as the Irish Development Board and the tourist board, be recognised for the enormous amount of effort that they

    483
    have put into making the Province more attractive in many respects? In relation to tourism, does my hon. Friend agree that even greater efforts could be put into ensuring that people, not only in that part of the United Kingdom but in the rest of Europe, are aware of the wonderful opportunities and attractions of that most beautiful part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ancram: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who not only has great experience of the work that is being done in Northern Ireland but contributed to it very substantially during his time as a Minister in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to him for that. He is right to point to the work that is being done by those agencies, both of which are fully aware of the opportunities that the ceasefires have brought to Northern Ireland, and are taking Northern Ireland out across the world and selling it. I know that both are making substantial efforts to do so.
    Miss Hoey: The Minister will agree that inward investment depends very much on good transport links. Does he share my concern and that of many people in Northern Ireland that Belfast international airport is seeking to take over Belfast city airport, and that that would be to the detriment of the tourist industry, the business community and, indeed, all people travelling between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Lady knows, those areas do not fall within my responsibility, but I am sure that my colleagues who are responsible for them will have heard what she has to say. It is important that we give every encouragement to movements within the economic sector in Northern Ireland that increase competitiveness and therefore give a chance to the people of Northern Ireland to prosper within their economy.
    Mr. Illsley: Although I welcome the inward investment into Northern Ireland, which is creating jobs and impacting on long-term unemployment, would not the prospects for employment be improved if job losses that have occurred through privatisation, the creation of agencies and the contracting-out of services—particularly strategic services, where in-house bids are prohibited—were prevented? Would it not be better to stop that process to preserve jobs within the Province?
    Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman were to talk to those involved in, for instance, the five projects that were announced last month, in terms of inward investment, he would find that many of them are interested in investing in Northern Ireland because of the flexible employment practices that exist there. My understanding—if I do understand Labour party policy, which is never as clear as it might be—is that if the Labour party had its way, those flexible practices would be discontinued.

    Water and Sewage Treatment Plants
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the performance of water and sewage treatment plants in Northern Ireland. [3035]
    Mr. Moss: The Department continually assesses the performance of its water and sewage treatment works. Data about the quality of water produced at its water
    484
    treatment works is available on the public register. The environment service is preparing formal discharge standards for sewage treatment works for monitoring on a similar public register.
    Mr. Forsythe: Is the Minister aware that his Department is allowing industrial effluent to be put into the normal sewerage system, which inevitably leads to untreated sewage entering our rivers? Will he give an assurance that no sludge from aluminium or supernatant water is getting back into the drinking water system in Northern Ireland, with the obvious dangers of causing Alzheimer's disease?
    Mr. Moss: The Department's water executive operates approximately 900 sewage treatment facilities in Northern Ireland, ranging from small rural septic tanks to multi-million pound works in urban areas. In that context, in 1994, just 27 pollution incidents out of a total of 2,216 were ascribed to its work—approximately only 1 per cent. Aluminium levels in public water supplies are regulated under the Water Quality (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1994, and the United Kingdom standards in them incorporate those of the European Commission. There is no proven link between aluminium and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease.
    Dr. Hendron: The Secretary of State will be aware that the people of Greater Andersonstown in my constituency of West Belfast have had to tolerate the stench of human excreta for the past 20 years and that various Department of the Environment Ministers have made promises and given explanations, all of which have been futile. He will also be aware that the DOE gave planning permission for building the large housing estates and development of the nearby brewery. Will the Secretary of State accept that the DOE and the Northern Ireland Office have been grossly negligent in allowing that problem to continue for so many years?
    Will the Minister now give a guarantee that meaningful and urgent action will be taken to deal with the problem so that the thousands of families who live in the area will no longer have to tolerate the stench of human sewage?
    Mr. Moss: I am familiar with the problem, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, of the Upper Falls works, since he brought a deputation to see me on that very matter. He will be pleased to note that the Department has met the senior management of the Bass brewery, who have agreed to reduce the strength of the brewery's discharge by 50 per cent. during the next six months. That should bring the discharge load down to design capacity.
    In the longer term, we have now agreed a new route for the sewer to Glenmachan street pumping station and from there to the reconstructed sewage treatment works at Duncrue street. Detailed design work has commenced and I hope that the new sewer will be installed towards the end of the 1996-97 financial year.

    Republic of Ireland (Agreement)
    Mr. Robert McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that no joint agreement with the Republic of Ireland will be agreed by the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of Northern Ireland citizens. [3039]
    Mr. Ancram: It is already the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government that the present status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will not change without the consent of the people who live there, and that the outcome of the three stranded talks process will be put to the electorate of Northern Ireland for their approval by referendum. We have no plans to add to or subtract from that policy.
    Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister, mindful that the principle of consent is a cornerstone of the Downing street declaration and has never been unequivocally and unreservedly accepted by Sinn Fein-IRA, give an assurance that, should the substantive talks take place and fail, Her Majesty's Government will not enter into any agreement with the Republic of Ireland in relation to the future government or administration of Northern Ireland without the specific consent of the majority of British citizens living there? Does he accept that the pro-Union parties in Northern Ireland will need an assurance before participating in those talks that they do not do so against a background of a threat of an imposed agreement or settlement without the majority's consent being given?
    Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have made it clear on many occasions that consent is absolutely central to any settlement in Northern Ireland. Not only is it central in terms of the Government's belief and policy, but in terms of practicality. History teaches us that any attempts to impose settlements on the people of Northern Ireland against the wishes of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland do not work. It is for that reason that the present status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will not change without the consent of a majority of the people who live there.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept that the principle of consent, which has always been at the heart of the Labour party's policy, is now established in an international treaty? Does he agree that consent, which is so important, should now give the people of Northern Ireland the confidence to negotiate an agreement which brings to the minority and to the majority community a sense of confidence in their own direction, which they can set for themselves knowing that we shall not drift back to what happened in the past when either the minority or the majority community felt threatened that something would be imposed without consent?
    Mr. Ancram: Indeed. That is key to the whole question of confidence, and to parties' becoming involved in the talks. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the time of the publishing of the framework documents that there was what he called a "triple lock". It is a question not just of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, but of the broad agreement of the parties, followed by a referendum, followed in turn by the agreement of Parliament. That triple lock remains firmly in place.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is known to be (a) Protestant and (b) Catholic. [3040]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): At 1 November 1995, 89 per cent. of the Royal Ulster Constabulary regular force, 88 per cent. of the full-time reserve and 93 per cent. of the part-time reserve were perceived to be from the Protestant community, whilst 8 per cent. of the regular force, 6 per cent. of the full-time reserve and 5 per cent. of the part-time reserve were perceived to be from the Catholic community.
    Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that, until the RUC reflects the balance of the communities in Northern Ireland, problems will continue? If the Government were able rapidly to present plans to achieve a better balance in the RUC, that might be a major argument in favour of decommissioning, which would reassure nationalists.
    Sir John Wheeler: I do not agree with the supposition that it is necessary to change the religious characteristics of the RUC to achieve that balance. The evidence points the other way. Now that we have a ceasefire however, more Roman Catholics are seeking to join the RUC.
    Perhaps I might remind the House that, during the 25 years o1 violence, one of the major reasons why members of the Catholic population did not seek to join the RUC was the fact that 297 RUC officers were killed and more than 7,300 injured and the Roman Catholic police officer was specifically targeted. Those days, I hope, are now behind us.
    Mr. Hunter: Is not it the case that, throughout the years of violence, support for the RUC was remarkably strong? Has not that support increased significantly on both sides of the political community divide since the ceasefires?
    Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The latest opinion survey shows that more than three quarters of the population—some 78 per cent.—thought the police to be helpful in dealing with ordinary policing problems. The Catholic population were only just less positive in their overall assessment of the helpfulness of the RUC than the Protestants, in whose case the figure was 81 per cent.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: The House and the people of Northern Ireland will be encouraged by the Minister's reply. Does not the increased Roman Catholic membership of the RUC demonstrate that the RUC is becoming more acceptable throughout Northern Ireland, and belie the campaign by Sinn Fein and its fellow travellers for the crown on the RUC badge, or the word "Royal", to be removed if the RUC is to become acceptable?
    Sir John Wheeler: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. All the evidence in Northern Ireland suggests that the constabulary is serving the whole community of Northern Ireland. It is increasingly successful in community affairs, and is addressing the concerns of the population. There is no need to change its basic characteristics to obtain support.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whether it is Catholic or Protestant, the RUC enjoys the utmost admiration among my constituents—and, I believe, among those of most hon. Members?
    Sir John Wheeler: I agree with my hon. Friend. The RUC has a tremendous reputation, built over 25 years of terrorist violence and, because of its steadfastness, it has contributed to the present peace process. The House and the country owe it a great deal.
    Mr. Worthington: As the Minister has said, a crucial part of the peace process in ensuring that the police force is supported and respected by all the people in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that, to achieve that consensus, it is necessary that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland should be given more powers and that the Secretary of State should reconsider the process whereby he appoints all the members of that authority?
    Sir John Wheeler: I shall issue a White Paper on the future arrangement for that police authority, and the tri-partite arrangement in Northern Ireland, soon. The hon. Gentleman is right—the authority should echo the interests of Northern Ireland's population and have clearly defined powers to hold to account the expenditures and policy objectives of the Chief Constable of the RUC.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3059]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hood: Will the Prime Minister tell us who is running the Government this week? Is it proper for the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to announce that the Government intend to publish a White Paper on Europe? If so, is that not further proof of the lurch to the right—or is the Prime Minister doing what he usually does: ruling nothing in, ruling nothing out and being decisively indecisive?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear this morning, we are examining all the issues that will come up in the intergovernmental conference, including whether it would be appropriate to have a White Paper.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present turmoil in France epitomises the potential social and political dangers of any attempt to shackle Britain to a single European currency or the social chapter, as is proposed by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: What it certainly shows, as my hon. Friend will be aware, is the difficulties that the present French Government have inherited from their socialist predecessors. If their predecessors had dealt with the underlying structural and fiscal problems at the time, the present French Government would not be facing this difficulty.
    Mr. Blair: I am surprised that the Prime Minister cannot tell us whether there will be a White Paper, but let me put this question to him and see whether he can
    488
    answer it. Is it still the Government's position that he will not rule out joining a single currency in the next Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: That is still the Government's position, as I have made clear on a number of occasions.
    Mr. Blair: I think that that is a very important statement. The Prime Minister has said that he will not rule it out in the next Parliament. We know that that is not the position of the Welsh Secretary or of many of his Back Benchers. Will he tell us this, then: is that the position of the whole of his Government, including the Euro-sceptic members of the Cabinet?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is the position of the whole Government and it has been repeatedly stated that that is the position of the whole Government. We have made that clear on a number of occasions, and nothing has changed.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: One of the conditions of the Dayton agreement is that all the parties should observe the European convention on human rights. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be somewhat paradoxical for British forces to be, in a sense, enforcing the European convention on human rights in Bosnia while we in Britain are contemplating withdrawal from that convention?
    The Prime Minister: We are certainly unhappy about some of the rulings made under the European convention on human rights. We have made that point and we will continue to do so. We were one of the founders of the European convention on human rights which, as my hon. Friend knows, is a quite separate matter from the European Court of Justice. That does not alter the fact that we and a number of other countries have been profoundly unhappy with some of its rulings. As I have said, we have made that point clear and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister make it clear whether Britain will withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights?
    The Prime Minister: We have not said that we shall withdraw from the European convention on human rights. We have said that we are profoundly dissatisfied with some of the court's judgments and that we propose to take that up with the European Commission of Human Rights and deal with it in some way in the future.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of this decade, a great many of our computers and those elsewhere will fail because they are not programmed to recognise the double zero of the year 2000? That will have immense and costly consequences for British business, small businesses and, perhaps, Government Departments. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government are aware of that and how they are responding to it?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful question. I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade examines the matter and responds to him.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3061]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: When the Prime Minister writes his customary letter to Santa this Christmas, will he make it quite clear that he is not asking for a puppy? Will he make it clear that he would discourage anyone from giving a puppy as a present to a child this Christmas, because a puppy is for all the year, not just a Christmas present?
    When the Prime Minister has finished his Christmas list and is writing his resolutions for the new year, will he make a resolution to introduce legislation to ban puppy farms? Such legislation would win support on both sides of the House and outside.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that everyone who contemplates giving a pet as a present for Christmas bears in mind that it is a present for the long term, not just for the short term. I hope that people will be responsible in their present giving.
    Mr. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend surprised at the survey today which found that more than half of all private investors would remove their capital from Britain in the event of a Labour victory—or does he consider that that is the inevitable consequence of such a catastrophe?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot pretend to be surprised at that survey's findings. I suspect that those surveyed have examined the likely implications of joining the social chapter and of the spending promises made by the Labour party and realised what they would do to taxation, competitiveness and employment.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3062]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bayley: As a parent of school-age children I am sure that I speak on behalf of many parents when I tell the Prime Minister that the Government have failed to convince the public or school caterers that British beef is safe. Will the Prime Minister, as a matter of urgency, make sure that the Department of Health issues genuinely independent advice about this matter to reassure parents?
    The Prime Minister: Of course this is an important matter for schools and for the safety of consumers as a whole. I have sought and received advice that there is currently no scientific evidence that BSE can be transmitted to humans or that eating beef causes CJD. That is not in question. I am also advised that beef is a safe and wholesome product. The chief medical officer's advice is clear—there is no evidence that eating beef causes CJD in humans.
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3064]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of teaching is crucial to improving standards and that the publication of test results is important in monitoring them? Does my right hon. Friend find it strange that the belated conversion of the Labour party to recognising the need for higher standards has not been
    490
    matched in the past by its willingness to see the publication of test results? In fact, it has done everything to frustrate that.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a point that will be recognised by parents throughout the country. On this matter, the Opposition's actions have frequently spoken a great deal louder than their words. During the past few years, they have opposed every measure that we have introduced to raise standards. They have described school league tables as political propaganda, test results as virtually useless, teaching children the basics as a fanatical doctrine—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may scoff, but they are scoffing at what their party and their Front Bench have said.
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3065]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Northern Ireland students who have been accepted into universities in England to follow physiotherapy or other courses leading to para medical qualification should not be disadvantaged and should not be expected to pay the balance between their mandatory award and the fees charged by the universities, which sometimes amounts to more than £5,000? Will he consider the matter and ensure that Northern Ireland students are not less well off than students from the Irish Republic or the European Union? Will he endeavour to remove this perceived disadvantage?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly examine that matter. If the hon. Gentleman has pointed to a genuine disadvantage, I shall invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to examine it and see whether it can be corrected.
    Mr. Lidington: Which local education authority produced the worst results in the recently published GCSE league tables? What options would the Government want to be available to parents in that local council area who are dissatisfied with the education authority's performance?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the worst results were in Islington education authority. There are several options available to Islington. I hope that the education authority will try to correct what has gone wrong and improve the quality of education for all the children in Islington. Of course, there remains the option of grant-maintained schools, which many parents throughout the country rightly perceive as offering good education that they want their children to enjoy.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3066]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: In her Centrepoint speech this morning, Princess Diana highlighted the inadequacy of the present system for homeless young people forced to live on the streets. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking

    491
    to respond to that eloquent plea by providing further assistance for such young people so that the problem no longer blights British society?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have been dealing comprehensively with the problem for some time and have made remarkable improvements over the past few years. We are fully committed to ensuring that there is no necessity for some people to sleep rough. We very much hope that the culture, which has grown up among some people, of doing so can be changed and broken. The Government are providing about 5,000 places in permanent and temporary accommodation for people who otherwise would have to sleep rough. That is in addition to the outreach and resettlement services for homeless people living on the streets. There is no doubt that there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of people sleeping rough. Plans to eliminate that practice continue, and I look forward to that day being reached.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I welcome very much what my right hon. Friend said about a possible White Paper on Europe. Does he agree that it would not only help to set out the Government's basic objectives, but would draw to public attention the ever-widening gulf between the Government and the Opposition who, under their present leadership, are destined to surrender more of our liberty, power, jobs and freedom to Brussels?
    The Prime Minister: That policy is clear in many Opposition speeches, but it is not universal. They seem to sing a different tune on some occasions. We are considering the desirability of a White Paper, which was
    492
    recommended by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the Scrutiny Committee. We shall consider their recommendations carefully, but we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will most certainly oppose some areas—certainly in advance of any White Paper saying so—in the negotiations that are to take place next year. They include an extension of qualified majority voting, massive new powers for the European Parliament and signing the social chapter. Whatever decision is reached about a White Paper, those policies are firm and will not change.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3067]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: When will the Government stop closing hospitals and wards, which affects the million-long waiting list and creates misery for all the people who want to get into hospital? Is the Prime Minister aware that it is creating another problem? Does he know that people are roaming the streets at night looking for hospitals to visit, but cannot find them? It is giving a whole new meaning to the term "roving ambassador".
    The Prime Minister: On the subject of provision of resources in the health service, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the increased provision—an extra £1.3 billion again this year, which is 70 per cent. above inflation during the year. There was a time when there was a significant cut in the health service, but that was when the hon. Gentleman supported a Labour Government.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The Business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill.
TUESDAY 12 DECEMBER—Until about seven o'clock, Second Reading of the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill.
Second Reading of the Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
THURSDAY 14 DECEMBER—Estimates Day (1st allotted day). On recommendations from the Liaison Committee, in relation to specified votes on account, there will be two debates. First, there will be a debate on the provision of NHS services for women with breast cancer, clinical research into breast cancer and the NHS breast screening programme. That debate will be for up to three hours. It will be followed by a debate on the regulation of financial services in the United Kingdom.
At ten o'clock the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates and the vote on account.
FRIDAY 15 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
TUESDAY 12 DECEMBER
European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 6612/94 and the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 30 November 1995 relating to environmental impact assessments.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Document COM(95)333 and the European Monetary Institute report dated November 1995 relating to the single currency.
WEDNESDAY 13 DECEMBER
European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 9491/93, 7511/95 and the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 2 June 1995 relating to integrated pollution prevention and control.
European Standing Committee B, European Community Document 10836/95 relating to state aid to the Irish steel industry.
[Tuesday 12 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 6612/94 and (b) unnumbered, Environmental Impact Assessments. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 48-xxi (1993-94) and HC 70-xiv (1994-95); (b) HC 51-iii (1995-96).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: COM (95)333, Single Currency; (b) European Monetary Institute report relating to the
494
changeover to the single currency. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 70-xix (1994-95) and HC 70-xxvi (1994-95); (b) HC 51-i (1995-96).
Wednesday 13 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 9491/93, (b) 7511/95 and (c) unnumbered, Pollution Prevention and Control. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 49-i (1993-94), HC 48-xiii (1993-94), HC 70-xii (1994-95), HC 70-xix (1994-95), HC 70-xxi (1994-95) and HC 70-xxvi (1994-95); (b) HC 70-xxi (1994-95) and HC 70-xxvi (1994-95); (c) HC 70-xxvi (1994-95).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 10836/95: State aid to the Irish steel industry. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 70-xxvi ( 1994-95) and HC 51-U (1995-96).]
Thursday 14 December:
Estimates Day—Vote on Account, Class X1 Vote 1, Department of Health: Hospital, community health, family health services and related services, England, in so far as it relates to the provision of NHS services for women with breast cancer, clinical research into breast cancer and the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Relevant report: Third report from the Health Committee, Session 1994-95, (HC 324), Breast Cancer Services.
Vote on Account, Class XVI, Vote I, Departments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: HM Treasury, in so far as it relates to the regulation of financial services in the United Kingdom.
Relevant Reports: Fourth report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, Session 1993-94, (HC 236), Retail Financial Services Regulation: An Interim Report; Second report, 1994-95, (HC 26), Financial Services Regulation: The Building Society Sector; Fifth report, 1994-95, (HC 187), Financial Services Regulation: Self Regulation at Lloyd's of London; Sixth report, 1994-95, (HC 332), The Regulation of Financial Services in the UK.
In the following week, on Monday 18 December the business will be as follows:
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Remaining stages of the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill.
Motion on the Copyright and Rights in Performances regulations.
Debate on the Commons Fisheries policy on a Government motion.
On Tuesday 19 December and Wednesday 20 December, I anticipate that Government business will be taken, but details of it have not yet been determined. At the conclusion of business on Wednesday 20 December, subject, of course, to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas recess.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Next Wednesday morning's debate in private Members' time on the preparation, drafting and publication of Government Bills, welcome as it is, does not preclude the need for a fuller and wider debate on making Parliament more effective—the debate for which

495
I have been asking. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has some sympathy with my request. Perhaps we can look forward to such a wide debate early in the new year.
May I ask the Leader of the House about progress on the establishment of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? I know that he is extremely anxious, as I am, that that Committee should be established as soon as possible so that it can get on with the difficult job of establishing a new code of conduct for Members. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that the Committee meets as soon as possible so that that important work can be started?
The Leader of the House will also be aware that the Government were defeated in the House of Lords on Tuesday on the Probation Rules (Amendment) Order 1995 and that serious concerns were expressed in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation yesterday when the order was debated. As the order deletes entirely provision for the training of probation officers and puts nothing in place of the existing arrangements, can the Leader of the House assure us that a new training requirement to fill that vacuum will be brought before the House as quickly as possible for full debate and approval?
In view of the widely conflicting expert opinion—not all experts are as confident as the Prime Minister—about the health threat from eating beef, and in view of the widespread public concern, may we have an urgent debate on the issue? Does the Leader of the House agree that such a debate would be widely welcomed, especially by parents, following yesterday's advice to schools that beef should be taken off the menu? This is a matter of great concern to many people. It is not as simple as the Prime Minister has said. I ask the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Newton: As for the debate on legislation next Wednesday, I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's request for a wider debate at some stage although I cannot yet make a definite commitment. She and I have in common a wish to continue to build, in any practicable way, on the improvements of the past couple of years.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady says about the new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and I shall continue to use my best endeavours to ensure that it is established as soon as possible. You yourself, Madam Speaker, said yesterday that you attached some importance to the matter.
On the probation rules debate, I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering what was said in another place last week and he will, no doubt, also consider what was said in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation yesterday. I cannot, however, add to that or say this afternoon what the outcome of that consideration will be.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not presenting himself as an expert giving advice on BSE, but was reporting the advice of the expert and independent committee which advises the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on these matters and the advice of the widely respected Chief Medical Officer who advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Nevertheless, I note the hon. Lady's request and do not in any way dismiss it, although I make the point that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is due to answer questions next Thursday.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. Friend yet again if he will spare time for a debate on Essex social services, as it has recently become evident that Essex county council, under Labour, is wasting £90,000 a week keeping its own old people's homes open, instead of using the private sector at a much cheaper rate?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a dedicated debate, despite my interest as my hon. Friend's constituency neighbour, and my being well aware of the concern felt in Essex. However, my hon. Friend will know that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), has recently asked the social services inspectorate to investigate the position.
Ms Liz Lynne: Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on the plight of elderly and disabled people during the present cold spell? We do not want there to be more unnecessary deaths from hypothermia. Will he announce that the Government intend to change the rules whereby a person does not get a cold weather payment unless the temperature has been below freezing for seven consecutive days?
Mr. Newton: The cold weather payments scheme has been considerably improved over the past few years, as I know, because I was responsible for many of the improvements. The payments have recently been increased from £7 to £8.50, and there has been a 40 per cent. increase since April 1994. Since 1991 more than 8 million payments, worth more than £50 million, have been made, which reflects the extent to which the scheme has been widened effectively.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the compensation arrangements for big public works in this country are still lamentable. Kent is threatened yet again with another railway proposal, and the Department of Transport has not yet worked out how it might implement its promise to the ombudsman to reconsider compensation for various oppressed individuals. Will my right hon. Friend allow us a debate on that important issue?
Mr. Newton: No doubt some reference was made to that subject in the debate on the carry-over motion for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shortly before the end of last Session, and I cannot promise an early further opportunity to discuss it. However, as his question acknowledged, my hon. Friend is aware that the Secretary of State for Transport is examining some aspects of the matter following the ombudsman's report. My hon. Friend will also recognise that the matter is difficult and complex.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have an extra Scottish Question Time next week to compensate for the fact that more than half the questions tabled for the next Scottish Question Time have been planted by Tory Members representing English constituencies? And if we are still level after extra time, can we decide it on penalties?
Mr. Newton: I might be more sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's request if he would give me an undertaking never to ask a question that relates to England.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the idea of allowing time for a debate on victim impact statements? He may be aware that there is much interest in them in this country, and that they already operate in many states in the United States of America. Victims are allowed to go to the court and make a statement about what has happened to them since they became victims, and the sentence is passed accordingly. I believe that we could consider that idea seriously for our courts. At present many victims in this country do not even know when their attackers are coming to court.
Mr. Newton: I always consider requests on such important matters, put in such a reasonable way, but my hon. Friend will understand that I can make no commitment.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: I understand from a parliamentary answer on Monday from the Secretary of State for the Environment that he has now received the inspector's report from the public inquiry into the emergency drought order in Yorkshire, but that he is not prepared to publish it yet—possibly not until after Christmas. The people who attended the inquiry feel that they have the right to see the inspector's report in the public domain as soon as possible, so will the Leader of the House find time to ensure that his right hon. Friend presents the report to the House before Christmas?
Mr. Newton: Of course I will bring the hon. Lady's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend. But I would say off the cuff that as this is a serious and difficult matter, I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend would want carefully to study such a report.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend expand the debate on Parliament that he is having with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to include the future of the other place? Is he aware that old Labour wanted to abolish the other place? Is he further aware that new Labour wishes to abolish all hereditary peers and convert them to life peers by an act of patronage that has not been seen before? Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that both steps would move us in the direction of becoming a one-party state?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's concern, and I agree that in this matter—as in many others—the Opposition's policy appears to consist of a rather fluctuating set of half-baked proposals.
Ms Estelle Morris: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on specific areas of law and order? Following recent widespread consultation, my constituents told me that their top priorities are still crime and the fear of crime. Will the Government consider crime prevention measures and try to get at the roots of crime? Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to find time for a debate on the issue?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has found time for a debate on the issue tomorrow.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will it be possible to have an early debate on industrial relations in this country, so that we can make an effective comparison between this country and trade union and mob-rule dominated France? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to condemn the Labour Members of the European Parliament who signed up to a resolution supporting the strikes in France, thereby proving that the Labour party is still the striker's friend.
Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's astonishment that Labour Members of the European Parliament should have acted in the way reported, and I can only assume that they would equally vote for a return to the winter of discontent here.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Leader of the House offered the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) a deal—no English crowding out of Scottish questions if Scottish Members do not ask questions on English matters. I will take that deal if it is still available.
In the mean time, may we have a debate before the Christmas recess on the Secretary of State for Scotland's forecast earlier this week that Scotland would be independent by the year 2002? Does the Leader of the House support his Cabinet colleague on the matter, or is he thinking of a quicker time scale to get us out from under this decrepit institution? Given that we are moving into the season of good will, can I have a more adventurous reply from the right hon. Gentleman than I usually get to my very reasonable questions at Business Questions?
Mr. Newton: As far as I am concerned, every season is the season of good will—even for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Richard Tracey: May we have an urgent statement before Christmas by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment regarding the conduct of ballots on whether schools are to become grant maintained? In addition to the well-reported experiences of a school in County Durham—in the Sedgefield constituency, I seem to recall—I have recently heard that there was serious harassment of parents at Hollyfield school in my constituency by members of the Opposition regarding the proposal that the school become grant maintained? Fortunately, the parents voted yes to the proposal. Nevertheless, this is a serious matter. Unfortunately, harassment seems to be going on all over the country.
Mr. Newton: It would be unfortunate if the allegations were demonstrated to be true. My hon. Friend will understand that at a time when the Department for Education and Employment is making inquiries about the allegations, it would not be right for me to comment further from the Dispatch Box. I would make the point to my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is due to be answering questions on Wednesday 13 December.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I add my voice to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for a debate on BSE? Given the alarm that people feel when top scientists advise against eating beef burgers, sausages and beef products and the fact that advisers are now telling schools not to serve beef, surely it is incumbent on the Government to have an urgent debate and to receive expert advice from sources other

499
than the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because its advice is completely discredited and nobody believes it?
Mr. Newton: I underline what I said earlier. We are not talking about officials in any Government Department, but an expert committee in relation to MAFF, comprised largely of eminent academics who are certainly not MAFF officials. I rightly described the Chief Medical Officer as widely respected—I happen to know him quite well because I used to work with him—so whatever else the hon. Lady says, I hope that she will not convey the impression that inexpert people are offering advice. For the rest, of course, I note her request.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to provide time for a debate on policing so that we have an opportunity to congratulate the police on the success of Operation Christmas Cracker, led by the chief constable of West Mercia? That operation demonstrates the determination of the police to crack down on all forms of theft.
Mr. Newton: That is the third question related to crime, law and order and the like, so I can only assume that there will be a busy and crowded debate in the House tomorrow.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Bearing in mind the present spirit of good will and the concept of Santa bringing presents, is the Leader of the House aware of whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wishes to make a statement announcing that Northern Ireland will receive the same benefits as have been extended to Scotland and Wales and that sittings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee will be held in public in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Newton: I have not received a request from my right hon. and learned Friend to make a statement, but as I take the hon. Gentleman's question as a disguised request for something to be done, I shall bring it to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have time to debate local government spending so that I can bring before the House the subject of the refusal of Ealing Labour council to provide travel passes—which it is bound by law to provide—to children wishing to attend the sixth form of Twyford Church of England school? That is not the only school for which the council is refusing travel passes. That refusal represents a denial of parental choice of school, which the Labour party has said that it believes in, but does not practise.
Mr. Newton: That would be another good question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment next Wednesday. Of course, I would expect further debate on the local government settlement in late January or early February when the usual orders have been laid.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May we have an urgent debate on the problems facing exporters who want to obtain money from countries to which they export goods? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Smith and Nephew in my constituency had to lay off 50 people as they found it impossible to get any money out of not only Iran, which has acknowledged foreign exchange difficulties, but Saudi Arabia, which is paying billions of
500
pounds to the United States in recompense for the Gulf war, but cannot find the money to pay an important employer in my constituency? Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the fury that I felt when I received a Christmas card through the post today from the ambassador of Saudi Arabia, when that country cannot pay its bills for goods exported there?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the Saudi ambassador reads Hansard, but I am sure that in one way or another the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be brought to the ambassador's attention. I shall certainly bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. John Marshall: May I join those who have urged my right hon. Friend to have a debate on education so that we can discuss the fact that, while the Labour party nationally talks about education standards, Labour councils locally produce poor results? Does he agree that there is more than whiff of hypocrisy in the fact that those who practise choice in education for their own children seek to deny it to other children?
Mr. Newton: Yes—that is, yes to my hon. Friend's observations rather than to a commitment to a debate, but I shall consider his request.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on the view expressed by all the hon. Members who participated in the debate yesterday on young people leaving care that the Children Act 1989 is not working and that the plight of young people leaving care at the age of 16 and 17 is deteriorating? We need that debate to draw attention to the cut in housing benefit which will further punish those young people who have faced every problem that life can throw at them, as described in early-day motion 135.
[That this House notes that 30 per cent. of young, single homeless people have experienced local authority care; recognises that young people leaving care need secure and stable accommodation; accepts that shared accommodation is often unstable and necessitates frequent moves; believes that young people leaving care should have the option of living by themselves; deplores the decision in the Budget to restrict housing benefit for the under-25 year olds to the cost of shared accommodation; and believes that this will greatly increase the problems already facing young people leaving care in finding a home.]
Is it not a terrible disgrace that we arc treating those children in that way? Most young people leave home at 22, but these youngsters are being thrown out at 16 and pitchforked from full-time care into full-time neglect.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's question has little or nothing to do with the Children Act 1989, but is more a question about the social security proposal that was announced at the time of the Budget. I draw his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Social Security is also due to answer questions next week.
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester): Unusually, may I urge my right hon. Friend to resist the calls for a debate on BSE? Does he understand that, given that British beef is completely safe, such a debate would be greeted with utter

501
dismay by the beef farmers of Worcestershire and the rest of the country? The Opposition are prepared to exploit any issue for narrow party advantage.
Mr. Newton: I take note of those representations even though they arc somewhat different from those I have received from the Opposition.
Mr. Greville Janner: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Employment Select Committee is to wind up on 2 March, having had to complete its report on employment statistics by then. The report will have to take into account the independent report by Dr. David Steel, commissioned by the Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the President of the Board of Trade when that report will be available; whether he will keep to the undertaking that we shall have it before the House by the end of January; and, if there is any doubt about it, whether he will make a statement to the House?
Mr. Newton: It is not true to say that the Employment Select Committee must complete anything by a particular date. I know that it wishes to, and our objective was to give it the opportunity to do so.
I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman has recently written to the Chancellor or the President of the Board of Trade about the matter. Of course, I will do anything I can to assist, to ensure that the report is available as soon as possible. However, I cannot guarantee a particular time.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May I add my support for the call for an urgent debate on education, so that we can discuss the amazing inconsistencies of certain Labour Members, who say one thing publicly about grant-maintained schools, but do something completely different when they have the opportunity to send their youngsters to those schools?
We could also discuss Lancashire county council and the fact that it sent letters to parents, before it knew the amount of the Budget settlement, that frightened them into thinking that the education budget would be cut by 8 per cent. The council now knows that there will be an increase in the education budget, but the chairman of the education committee—Stan Wright—will not give a guarantee that all that extra money will be passed on to schools.
Mr. Newton: A debate on education, given the enthusiasm manifested by Opposition Front Benchers, becomes a more attractive proposition by the minute. Of course, careful students of the Gracious Speech will realise that education legislation is in prospect, partly related to grant-maintained schools. That should provide some opportunities in due course.
Mr. David Winnick: Following his previous answer, and in view of the fact that if the weather changes not a single penny will be received by pensioners for heating—because of the mockery and farce of the scheme—will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Security to come to the House on Monday to announce that the payments will be made regardless of the weather and because of the intense
502
hardship experienced by millions of pensioners on the lowest possible incomes? Is that asking too much before the festive season?
Mr. Newton: I have already arranged for the Secretary of State for Social Security to answer questions on Tuesday, as I told the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Beyond that, I cannot add to what I said earlier—except to underline the fact, which is well known to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), that the scheme has been radically improved over a short period.
Mr. Matthew Banks: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Labour party has called for a significant increase in the powers of the European Parliament. Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate soon, to give Opposition Members the opportunity to specify the powers that they would like to hand over? Without wishing to tempt my right hon. Friend into indiscretion, will he comment on how damaging such a transfer of power would he for Britain?
Mr. Newton: I am tempted to say that if only people would stop asking me questions, such a debate would take place immediately.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 147?
[That this House notes that the latest official electoral figures show that there is an average of five per cent. of the eligible population missing from electoral registers in the United Kingdom; further notes that these figures under-state the problem and that as many as three to four million people may be absent from registers, a claim that is described as broadly correct by the OPCS Director of Statistics; believes that this continuing and high level of voter under-registration, particularly in inner city areas and among the homeless and rootless, black people and youth, should be of urgent concern to democrats in all parties and none as it undermines the quality of our parliamentary democracy; further notes that Saturday 16th December is the deadline for people having their names included in the annual register of voters published in February; and encourages those who have not already done so to register by this deadline; further believes that reforming the current outdated voter registration system through the introduction of a rolling register will help to reverse the dramatic shortfall in electoral registration as this will allow people to register where they live, when they live there and will give extra duties for electoral registration officers, greater local and national publicity and increased access by disabled people to polling stations and to voting; and congratulates the Full Franchise umbrella group for seeking to bring all these matters to the attention of Parliament and the people during its week of activities from 3rd December.]
That early-day motion has been signed by 157 hon. Members, even though it appeared on the Order Paper only on Tuesday, and the six main sponsors are from six different political parties. The early-day motion shows that the electoral register is in a terrible state and needs readjusting and work. The homeless, young people and others should be added to the register, so that they may enjoy their full democratic rights. All democrats should believe in the basic building block of equality of the franchise. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate,

503
which would be appropriate now, because 16 December is the final date for checking names and recording them on the electoral register?
Mr. Newton: A lot is done to make the register as complete as possible, including television advertising by the Government aimed at the young and people from ethnic minorities, who are among those about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the House debate the panic in the Tory party, which has now reached epic proportions? Today's Financial Times reports that the 1922 Committee is accusing not just Labour and other Opposition parties but the Speaker of being biased. The Chairman of the Tory party is also monitoring the activities of Madam Speaker. I speak from a position of impartiality, having been thrown out—in rugby league parlance, taken an early bath—a few times. The last occasion was when I said that the Government were a wart on Thatcher's nose. Will the Leader of the House put a stop to that nonsense, so that we can get on with the job of proper politics? If the Tories cannot stand it, let us have a general election and sort the matter out.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I hope that we may take them as a promise of future good behaviour.
Mr. Alan Simpson: The Leader of the House may not have had the opportunity to read an article in today's Independent which details the extent to which £86 million that has gone into Motability Finance Ltd. to provide transportation and vehicles for the disabled is difficult to account for, to say the least. I ask him urgently to arrange a debate on the structure of Motability Finance and to ask the Prime Minister to clarify whether the matter has been brought to his attention and is one that he has raised with Lord Sterling in his capacity as chairman of Motability Finance Ltd?
Mr. Newton: I have not studied the article in the Independent although I know a good deal about Motability, having been the Minister for Disabled People and held other relevant positions over the years. The Minister with principal responsibility for the matter is the Secretary of State for Social Security, who will be in the House to answer questions next week. I will draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House find time in the next few days for a debate on Britain's contribution to international organisations, particularly in view of the visit to London today of Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO? I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 152.
[That this House welcomes UNESCO's Director-General Dr Federico Mayor's visit to the United Kingdom and his participation in the events which took place in London to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of UNESCO's Constitution adopted at the Institute of Civil Engineers on 16th November 1945; welcomes the strong message of support for UNESCO's work which Dr Mayor received from President Clinton on the occasion of that anniversary and his assurance that the re-entry of the United States of America to UNESCO would be given high priority as soon as the budget situation allowed;
504
deeply regrets the negative and outdated arguments put forward by the Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the debate on UNESCO on 31st October; believes that the United Kingdom is missing a very important opportunity to promote both its international obligations and its national self-interest by not joining UNESCO without further delay; laments the incalculable harm that is befalling British culture as a whole and the English language in particular as a direct result of the United Kingdom's absence from UNESCO; and seeks specific guidance from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that Her Majesty's Government is willing to set a specific target date for early re-entry and to include the financial obligations connected with renewed membership in its budget planning.]
Will the Leader of the House raise with his Government colleagues the disgraceful decision to cut funding of the British Council and of projects such as those in Gaza, where there is an enormous demand for English language tuition and where the funding of new building would greatly help the development of the middle east peace process? Also, the Commonwealth Institute is about to make redundancies because the Government cut that organisation's support a couple of years ago. Is not it time to debate the Government's disgraceful attitude to supporting international organisations?
Mr. Newton: It is well known that this Government and this country have a good reputation—far better than some larger countries—for paying their subscriptions and the like. We note the views expressed in early-day motion 152, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said a month or so ago, the question of our return to UNESCO remains under review.
Mr. Tony Banks: Looking around the House, it is clear that we are too late and that mad cow disease has already entered the human food chain. If the Leader of the House cannot arrange for a debate on BSE and its link to human beings, will he issue an instruction that all beef products should be removed from the menus of the House? Perhaps that would prevent us from becoming even more demented.
Mr. Newton: Even were I minded to do so—the hon. Gentleman will have realised from my earlier answers that I am not—I would not have the power to do so.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on Monday about the orders that are due to take effect which will lead to another huge upheaval in public services in Wales, in this instance the fire brigades? We have had no opportunity to debate the orders despite requests that we should be able to do so. Does he understand that many people in Wales are concerned that there has not been an opportunity for proper and democratic scrutiny? Fire services are vital to Wales and the Government's proposals are viewed with great concern by many members of the public.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It would seem to highlight the advantages of the proposals that my right hon. Friend has recently made to extend the role of the Welsh Grand Committee.

Point of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the case that if ever there is any criticism of the Speaker a motion should be tabled on the Order Paper? As I understand it—you will correct me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker—that motion should be debated immediately. Is it not unacceptable for your activities to be monitored? When there were Conservative Speakers, I am not aware that Labour Members monitored their activities.
Mr. Tony Banks: Disgraceful.
Mr. Winnick: As my hon. Friend says, it is disgraceful. If the chairman of the Conservative party, a Member of this place, is dissatisfied with your conduct, Madam Speaker, he should table a motion on the Order Paper so that we may have a debate.
Madam Speaker: I do not believe everything I read in newspapers. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right: if there is any criticism of the Chair, a motion must be tabled, which would be debated immediately. I repeat that I do not always believe what I read in newspapers.

European Union
[Relevant documents: The Twenty-fourth Report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, Session 1994-95, on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference: the Agenda; Democracy and Efficiency; the Role of National Parliaments (HC 239-1), and the Government's reply (Cm 3051); European Parliament-Resolution A4-0102/95 on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union with a view to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference; Report of the Council on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union (Cm 2866); Report by the Commission on the operation of the Treaty on European Union (SEC(95)73I); Report by the Court of Auditors on the operation of the Treaty on European Union and the Report of the Court of Justice on certain aspects of the application of the Treaty on European Union; the White Paper on Developments in the European Union January-June 1995 (Cm 3130); and the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 30th November (HC 72-i).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
4.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The debate provides Members with an opportunity to comment on a range of issues affecting the European Union. I intend to concentrate on the forthcoming European Council summit in Madrid. I shall have a few comments to make, which I hope will be helpful, to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the Opposition's spokesman, so that we may help to clarify certain of the Opposition's policies. I think that that will be of benefit to the House and the country.
First, I shall concentrate on the forthcoming summit in Madrid. The next few years will be as important as any in the EU's 40-year history. We shall face challenges such as enlargement to the east and south, hard decisions on a single currency, the development of Europe's security architecture, and fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. Underlying all that is the need to restore Europe's global competitiveness and its ability to create jobs. Only if the EU can contribute to that goal can we rebuild people's confidence in a way that is relevant to their concerns.
Next week's Madrid European Council will focus on many of the issues to which I have referred. It is clear that the intergovernmental conference will be a major item on the agenda next week. I welcome the close interest that the House has taken in the preparations, and especially the reports from the Select Committees on European Legislation and on Foreign Affairs. Members will have seen the Government's response to the Committees' reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), the Minister of State, has kept the House closely in touch with developments in the study group. He will talk in more detail later about these developments if he is successful in catching your eye, Madam Speaker. Keeping Parliament informed is a priority for the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this afternoon, we are considering whether to publish a White Paper early next year setting out the Government's approach to the intergovernmental conference.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for showing his characteristic courtesy. Does he agree with

507
Commissioner Kinnock that, as far as eastern European countries are concerned, the prospect of membership of the European Union is exceedingly distant?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure that I necessarily agree with Commissioner Kinnock. It very much depends. It is undoubtedly true that negotiations on enlargement will take a number of years; they did for Spain and Portugal, so it is hardly likely that they will take less than the five or six years that were required for those countries when we come to the countries of central and eastern Europe. But time will tell, and I will have something further to say on enlargement later.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State talks about fully communicating and informing Members of Parliament. Is not what we need as domestic politicians more involvement in what is going on in Europe, and proper, positive involvement, not just information?
Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman proposes to support the Government in their view that national Parliaments should be more involved in the consideration and scrutiny of European proposals, and that will be one of the items for the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. Mike Gapes rose—
Mr. Rifkind: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The study group, which has been meeting since June to prepare options on the issues that the IGC will address, issued its report earlier this week. Although the membership of the study group does not precisely reflect that of the IGC, the report is a good preliminary indication of the likely agenda, and the current balance of member states' views.
The report says that next year's IGC will not entail a radical rewrite of the Maastricht treaty or aim to turn the European Union into a super-state, but will concentrate on practical steps to make Europe more relevant to people, and to make the Union work better and to prepare it for enlargement. These are fine words, and I endorse them, but it is not enough to assert these things: we need to deliver them. Our Government's realistic, practical agenda for the IGC will, I believe, do that.
With so many major challenges facing us over the next few years, people could be forgiven for asking why the European Union is embarking on another IGC so soon after Maastricht came into force. If it heralds a long period of navel-gazing and institutional tinkering, people will feel that the European Union is fiddling while Europe burns. But if the IGC strengthens practical European co-operation where necessary, and shows with renewed determination that the European Union should stay out of areas where it is not necessary, people will be prepared to welcome that. That is what our approach is designed to deliver.
I shall now comment on European Union enlargement, which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raised with me.
None of the challenges that I mentioned earlier is more important than the historic mission to re-embrace the countries of central and eastern Europe. We must welcome them back fully into our family of democracies.
508
In extending to our neighbours to the east the security and prosperity that we have enjoyed for 50 years, we will enhance the security and prosperity of the whole of Europe. That is why we are so firmly committed to enlargement.
It is clear that enlargement will not simply happen overnight: both the candidate countries and the European Union have plenty to do first. The European Union must take sensible decisions about the negotiating process. We expect at least some of the countries of central and eastern Europe that are ready and willing to begin negotiations alongside Cyprus and Malta, six months after the IGC.
But we also want to ensure that the enlargement process is smooth and sustainable. That means that the European Union will have to decide which associated countries have made most progress towards readiness for membership. The Commission's Opinions will be a vital ingredient in that process, and I welcome its intention to produce the Opinions shortly after the IGC. Meanwhile, we must continue to encourage the associated countries to keep up the progress that is being made in preparing to take on EU membership, particularly in preparations to join the internal market.
There are other major issues, too. The IGC must address the institutional needs of an enlarged European Union, and there are important policy implications. The Commission has just published two important reports, which will launch a very important debate on reform of the common agricultural policy and the structural funds. I welcome its analysis that, as we have long been saying, extending an unreformed CAP to an enlarged European Union would breach commitments under the general agreement on tariffs and trade on subsidised agricultural exports.
Mr. Tim Renton: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend on the importance of enlargement for Cyprus and Malta and for countries of eastern Europe. However, as he says, enlargement will require institutional change. Does he not perceive that some of that institutional change will be an extension—a wise extension—of qualified majority voting? Otherwise, the possibility of a small country using its veto to block progress until there is a reform of the CAP that suits it will surely be all too great.
Mr. Rifkind: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. Of course there will be implications for the size of the Commission as the Community enlarges. It is ludicrous to imagine that, as the Commission enlarges, each new member state, including very small countries, will automatically have a Commissioner, and that nothing else will change. The Commission itself clearly has to be reformed, and I recognise that fact. I also recognise that the weighting attached to the voting rights of individual countries may have to reflect an enlarged European Union. But I do not accept the argument that the case for enlargement points towards an increase in qualified majority voting.
I say that for this reason. The Community is already 15-strong. We already have qualified majority voting in many areas. Where we have the need for unanimity, it is almost invariably because there is a need for it because of the importance of the issues concerned. If one considers the European Union, despite small countries such as Luxembourg, that has not prevented progress from being

509
made. If one considers other international organisations, NATO, for example, has never had qualified majority voting at any time in its history. It has always proceeded by consensus, and has always managed to reach agreement acceptable to all member states.
Therefore, the Government's view is clear. We do not believe that there is a case for an increase in qualified majority voting, and we do not believe that the enlargement of the European Union changes that in any meaningful or significant way.
Mr. Peter Shore: I accept the Secretary of State's view that there should be no extension of qualified majority voting to take account of enlargement, but will he say something about the directly relevant point of what should constitute a blocking minority in an enlarged Community?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes. As I mentioned, I accept that there is a case for what is often referred to as a re-weighting of the voting strength of individual countries, because it clearly would be ludicrous if a country such as Malta, with a tiny population, had a voting strength which was more comparable with that of Belgium, Greece or the Netherlands. Likewise, one must take account of the larger countries, which have considerably increased voting weight. That is already recognised to some extent in the existing voting rights and the voting weight of respective member states. I have no doubt that further work needs to be done on that, and the British Government are willing to support that approach.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Rifkind: If hon. Members will forgive me for a moment, I am sure that they will have an opportunity to intervene later in my remarks.
It has also been pointed out by the Commission, in the work that has been done on enlargement, that, unless the CAP is reformed, the European Union will face the prospect of yet more food mountains. That is why the report concludes that the status quo for the CAP is not an option. That is welcome news, even if it does not go far enough for us. I should also add that the status quo is not an option for the structural funds, either. Reform will be needed so that the Union can enlarge successfully and affordably.
Those are difficult issues. We must tackle them and tackle them soon. That is not because we have somehow gone cool on enlargement—quite the opposite. If we put these problems to one side now, they will certainly come back to obstruct progress later. We are serious about enlargement to the east, and keen to see the process begin as soon as it reasonably can. That is why we want to bring all the questions into the open now, starting at the Madrid European Council next week.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: On the question of enlargement, is it not a huge task to expect the former Soviet bloc countries to sign up to the whole of the acquis communautaire? In view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's exhortation to have a multi-speed, multi-track Europe, should we not be seeking
510
to give those countries the opportunity to join aspects of activities of the European Union, not necessarily to compel them to join all of them?
Mr. Rifkind: I do not underestimate the complexity of the issues, but I must say two things to my hon. Friend. First, the countries themselves wish to sign up to the whole of the acquis; they are not asking for a differentiated approach. Secondly, the complexity that my hon. Friend rightly identifies will be relevant to the length of the transition that may be required for individual countries.
However, the countries that have expressed the greatest interest—the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary—have said that they wish to become full members of the European Union, and they are prepared to make the internal changes because they are trying to move to a market economy as quickly as possible.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Following the answer that the Foreign Secretary gave one of his own Back Benchers, the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), may I ask him whether it is not a measure of the success of the European Union that so many former members of the Warsaw pact want to sign up not just to parts of the treaty, but to all of it?
Mr. Rifkind: That is an entirely reasonable comment. Despite being controversial in many respects in many countries, the European Union is seen as a positive force for European progress.
The Government and British businesses are wholly committed to maximising the gains to British citizens and British business from membership of the European Union. The achievement of that goal is not a zero-sum game; as Europe prospers, so does the United Kingdom. The Government have an economic agenda for Britain and for Europe. We want, and are working, to sharpen the competitive edge of European businesses. Successful businesses create jobs; uncompetitive businesses shed jobs. We want less regulation and fewer burdens on business, completion of the single market, liberalisation of the telecommunications and energy sectors, and more free trade.
It is fashionable to knock Brussels. It is the bureaucratic capital of the world, and the home of red tape. Much of the criticism is justified, but under the new Commission things may now be changing. Jacques Santer made that clear in his speech to the Guildhall earlier this year. He is committed to "less action, but better action". Sir Leon Brittan made it clear in his speech to the CBI three weeks ago when he said:
"the tide of social legislation has all but dried up … the emphasis is now on job creation".
At Madrid, our Prime Minister will again reinforce the message. We want progress on enhancing competitiveness, improving the quality and reducing the quantity of legislation, deregulating labour markets to make them more responsive, creating jobs and reducing unemployment. We want less rhetoric and more action, and we shall continue to push strongly for that.
Let me give two examples of the way in which the battle is being won. First, there is the legislative burden. In 1990—only five years ago—the Commission proposed 185 pieces of primary legislation; by 1993, that figure was

511
down to 75, in 1995 it is down further to 43, and the Commission estimates that next year it will be down to 21.
Mr. Michael Spicer: One of the reasons why that admirable trend may be happening is the increasing power of the European Court. Lord Denning's "onrush of European law" is beginning to become a reality. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that some of the reforms may increase the Court's credibility? We want to restrict and limit it to interpreting the treaty of Rome, rather than making laws that replace some of the Commission's laws.
Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that the proper task of the European Court is to interpret the treaty when there is a genuine legal dispute concerning its provisions. We are giving thought to proposals to improve the workings of the Court. We think it unfortunate, for example, that no appeals procedure exists. However controversial or expensive for a member state the Court's judgments may be, there is no opportunity for a second consideration. That is quite unlike the procedures that are available in national courts.
We also need to look afresh at the European Court's powers to impose heavy damages on member states retrospectively, even when some infraction of a directive may have been carried out in good faith and with no intent to disregard the significance of that directive. Important reforms can be made in a constructive way, and we intend to take the lead in promoting such an approach.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is not the problem that, in interpreting, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, the treaty, the judges consider it with the eye of continental lawyers? They do not narrowly construe just one section of one Act; they consider what they believe to be the general purpose of the treaty. The result is that the thing is always skewed in a federal direction.
Mr. Rifkind: I must confess that I am very nervous when my hon. Friend refers to the judges interpreting these matters in a continental fashion, as the British judge, Judge David Edward, is my old devil master, at whose knees I learned such knowledge as I have of Scottish law. I would not dare make such an accusation in regard to any judgments in which he was personally involved.
One of the European Court's strengths is that it has brought together different traditions and different legal systems, and sought to apply the European legal profession's accumulated wisdom in determining such matters, but I accept my hon. Friend's point to some extent. Of course, if the bulk of the judges come from countries with a continental judicial tradition, that is bound to influence the way in which they deal with particular matters. That is another reason why some appeal system is required within the European Court: if, for whatever reason, there has been an imbalance, it is unhealthy if that cannot be rectified in any way.
I mentioned the dramatic and welcome decline in primary legislation in the past five years. We should like similar progress in secondary legislation emerging from Brussels. The quality of legislation also needs to improve, with greater consultation, especially with businesses, before specific legislation is even considered.
Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West): Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves the point about an appeals procedure, has he considered how that might be structured, and whether, if disputes on subsidiarity were involved, it might be better if an appeal were referred to a body drawn from the national Parliaments of the European Union rather than from another series of judges?
Mr. Rifkind: There are various ways in which subsidiarity can be given greater primacy. Our view is that we should like it entrenched in treaty form, to ensure that such matters are given much greater weight. That is what we will seek to do.
The other area in which there has been good progress is in the fight against fraud. The United Kingdom secured significant changes at Maastricht, including an enhanced role for the European Court of Auditors and for the European Parliament in that respect. That is also an area where further work is required. Further detailed examination of the ways in which fraud can be more effectively dealt with should be given the prominence it deserves.
The UK lives by trade and by investment. That is why the Government are fully committed to working towards open markets around the world, whether within the European Union, across the Atlantic or elsewhere. With our European partners, we took a leading role in the 1995 World Trade Organisation negotiations on financial services liberalisation. We shall press hard for a good outcome to the negotiations currently under way within the WTO for liberalisation of telecommunications and maritime services. We must keep up the momentum for dismantling barriers to trade and investment wherever they exist.
Market access is crucial, whether for the European Union's neighbours to the east or for the Mediterranean countries. Britain is the strongest supporter in the EU of open markets, and that is why we want over time to create a Mediterranean free trade area, covering, in particular, agriculture, where many Mediterranean partners enjoy a comparative advantage.
That is why we have been pressing for increased access for agricultural and other goods from central and eastern Europe. That is important if those countries are to develop their economies in a free-market fashion that we would wish to welcome.
That challenge has not yet been responded to satisfactorily by member states as a whole. Last month, European Union Foreign Ministers considered a European Commission proposal for a five-year programme to increase quotas for goods from eastern European countries by 10 per cent. a year. That would have been a modest help in allowing them to develop those sectors of their economy that are most competitive. We strongly supported the Commission's efforts. We made it clear that the quantities of extra goods involved were tiny. It was absurd that the Commission's proposals were opposed by some member states.
Let me give just one or two examples of what some member states felt obliged to oppose. At present, Bulgaria can send four lorryloads of strawberry jam to the European Union each year. The Commission proposes that, by the end of the century, it should be able to send an extra two lorry loads. That was opposed. In five years'

513
time, Poland would be allowed to send an extra four tonnes of lettuces to the European Union each month. That was opposed. Slovakia's quota for ham exports should be raised by 12 kg per day per member state. That was opposed. An extra 40 lb of Polish sweet peppers per member state per day was opposed. A total of 40 g more Czech duck meat annually for each man, woman and child in the Community by 1999 was considered unacceptable. According to the Commission's proposals, in five years' time all the associated countries of eastern Europe would have been able to export additional cereals equivalent to 0.3 per cent. of German production, yet Germany opposed that request.
Those proposals for increases over five years were opposed by a number of countries, including Germany and several Mediterranean countries. I am not sure how other member states can proudly claim to be helping the central Europeans when they are so miserly about access to our markets. It defies belief that a few jars of Bulgarian jam could represent a serious threat to the economies of western Europe.
Mr. Richard Burden: Since the Foreign Secretary is obviously opposed to petty opposition from member states, can he tell me why his Government are opposing a proposal by Sweden to make full employment an objective of the European treaty? Does he oppose full employment in Europe, or is his opposition petty?
Mr. Rifkind: Britain's position stems from the fact that we have the lowest levels of unemployment of any major country in the European Union. One of the reasons for that low level is that we believe that employment policy can best be determined by national Governments answerable to national Parliaments. We have rejected the social chapter precisely because it results in higher unemployment and lost jobs. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about these matters, he should speak to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, and tell them to abandon the policy that is so damaging to the employment requirements of this country.
Economic and monetary union will feature prominently at Madrid. The Prime Minister made it clear at the informal Heads of Government meeting in Majorca in September that a number of important issues had yet to be examined properly. Although the Prime Minister secured for Britain an option on whether to join stage 3 of economic and monetary union, the questions to which the Prime Minister referred, and will refer again at Madrid, are of the utmost importance not only to Britain but to all member states.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Was it not a remarkable triumph of diplomacy to negotiate that option on the single currency at Maastricht, and to gain along with it the right to play a full part in the discussions on the future shape and management of the single currency? Is it not right that those two abilities—the option and the right to take part in discussions—represent considerable assets for this country, and that one would have to be completely barmy to suggest simply throwing them away?
Mr. Rifkind: That is right. It was a negotiating triumph by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it illustrates most clearly a point to which I shall return—that, just occasionally, the United Kingdom has to be prepared to be on its own if it is properly to protect British interests.
It is clear that, if EMU is to go ahead on 1 January 1999, only a minority of member states will be ready. Many will not have met the convergence criteria in the treaty of Maastricht. What will be the relationship between those within and those outside EMU? What effect might that have on the functioning of the single market, Community spending and the institutional framework of European decision-making? Much more work needs to be done on those and other issues before any clear picture emerges about what stage 3 might look like.
Mr. John Redwood: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the British Government will be expecting by way of currency convergence and stability to meet the Maastricht treaty 109J for those countries and currencies which are seeking to join?
Mr. Rifkind: Those are exactly the issues on which the work has not been done. We will be arguing strongly that, whether it is because of an inability to join EMU or an unwillingness to do so, it is clear that more than half the member states of the Union would not be part of a single currency if it were to be formed in 1999. Therefore, it is crucial that the work should begin now, not in 1997 or 1998, on the implications for the relationship between the "ins" and the "outs" in such a situation.
At Madrid, the Heads of Government will also consider the reference scenario for the transition to stage 3, the name of the currency, and German proposals for a fiscal stability pact in stage 3 to reinforce budgetary discipline among those member states which participate in the single currency. In its present form, the recommendation on a reference scenario which ECOFIN will submit to Madrid is broadly acceptable to the UK.
The decision on the name, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech to the Guildhall, is a potential distraction from the more important issues which we want discussed at Madrid—although I imagine that those who support a single currency will want it to have a name with some popular resonance.
Mr. Gapes: If a single currency is established by a minority of countries and Britain stays out of it, would that not be extremely damaging to the British economy and to our role in international financial institutions, especially if those countries take retaliatory action against other countries that are not part of the system?
Mr. Rifkind: Those matters are clearly among the issues that the United Kingdom will have to consider and on which it will have to reach a decision—looking not only at the alleged advantages but at the alleged disadvantages, and coming to a judgment on where British interests lie. We will give very serious consideration to that.
On fiscal stability, the Government's record—notably the recent Budget—speaks for itself. The Government's fiscal policy is directed at maintaining sound public finances. As to the detail of the German proposals, that will be a matter for the Heads of Government to address.

515
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor emphasised in his Budget speech, we will continue to pursue economic policies that will have the effect of achieving the convergence criteria set out in Maastricht by the end of 1997. These policies make sound economic sense in themselves.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Given the obvious difficulties that some of our partners, such as Italy and Belgium, will have in meeting the convergence criteria, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that, in a spirit of fraternal friendship with those countries, it is time to suggest that they might dust down the idea so ably put forward by our own Prime Minister several years ago, that the ecu should trade not necessarily as a single currency, but as a common currency? That would be a market-based, gradualist solution that might well have many attractions, both for our party and for other countries.
Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's views are well known. We must leave it to other countries to come gradually to their own conclusions on whether they might be relevant to their circumstances. My right hon. Friend has always said that he believes that there is strength in that sort of approach. Perhaps, at some stage, it might commend itself to others as well.
With regard to Madrid, I want finally to deal with the immediate issues facing the EU on the question of the customs union between it and Turkey. We are anxious to ensure that the EU remains outward-looking. The Foreign Affairs Council on 30 October took a formal decision to implement a customs union. I very much hope the European Parliament will give its assent next week.
Customs union will reinforce the EU's relations with a very important neighbour. Turkey is a key partner in a volatile region, and customs union will help to maintain its western orientation. It will also bring important benefits to British business, as Turkey liberalises its import regime and brings its legislation into line with the EU on intellectual property protection, competition policy and state aids.
Turkey has made real progress on a number of human rights issues identified by the European Parliament in recent months. There have been constitutional and local government reforms, the release of certain Members of Parliament, and reforms to article 8 of the anti-terror law. Some 150 jailed writers and academics have benefited. When she visited London recently, Prime Minister Ciller of Turkey made it clear that she is committed to continuing the process after the forthcoming general elections. We very much welcome that.
Having commented on the Government's approach towards the Madrid summit, I want to refer to the views expressed in an interesting and memorable way by the Opposition. What has struck me as most significant has been the extent to which both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Livingston, the shadow Foreign Secretary, have emphasised that a British Government led by them would not be isolated in Europe. They have made their views on that clear in a most unambiguous way.
The Leader of the Opposition said on 4 October 1994:
"Under my leadership, I will never allow this country to be isolated or left behind in Europe."
516
He said on 20 May:
"My belief is that the drift towards isolation in Europe must stop and must be replaced by a policy of constructive engagement."
The hon. Member for Livingston said at the Labour party conference on 3 October:
"The Government's isolation in Europe has cost Britain dear. Labour has a positive agenda for reform in Europe, a people's agenda, that will strengthen Britain's influence and benefit the people of Britain."
I have been giving some thought to what the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Livingston might mean by not being isolated in Europe. It is a very powerful position to adopt. One has tried to work out how they intend to achieve it. So far as I can tell—unless the hon. Member for Livingston corrects me—there are only two ways in which they could achieve it.
Either they are saying that, over the past 16 years, if they had been the Government, they would have agreed with the rest of the European Union on all the issues on which the British Government stood alone. That is one possible way in which we could have avoided isolation. Alternatively, they are saying, "Well, no, we would not necessarily have agreed. But we would have allowed ourselves to be out-voted, allowed majority voting, and removed the veto. So, even if we disagreed, we would have come to terms with what is being proposed."
I thought that that latter approach was Labour policy because, at the time of its party conference, it produced a policy document that seemed to suggest that it was preparing to abandon the veto and unanimity requirements. In that document, published in October, it said, quite explicitly: "We reject permanent opt-outs." That is very clear. In the same document, it said:
"Labour therefore accepts that it is in Britain's interests to extend qualified majority voting in some cases such as certain areas of social policy, industrial policy, regional policy and environmental policy."
That seems quite clear. Labour is saying that we would not be isolated, because we would have no permanent opt-outs, and QMV would operate in all those areas.
At least, I thought it was clear, until I started listening to the speeches. Despite putting those statements in their document, Labour Members have been extraordinarily shy in sharing those observations with the general public. Unless one goes to the actual text, one would not know that what I have cited is Labour party policy.
On the very day that the policy document was published, the hon. Member for Livingston made a speech to his party conference. He made no reference to having no permanent opt-outs or to abandoning qualified majority voting in those four areas. He has made a speech in the House on European policy since then, and, despite requests from Conservative Members, he did not make a single reference to ending qualified majority voting or having no permanent opt-outs. The leader of the Labour party, in his famed address to the Confederation of British Industry, made no reference to those matters, nor did he in a major speech on European policy on Thursday.
So we have to ask ourselves whether that lack of reference is because of shyness. Did the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Livingston forget that that was their policy? Have they not read their own document? Or is it tactics? Do they like to have a

517
commitment on paper to end Britain's ability to protect its interests, and hope that no one notices because they make no reference to it in their speeches?
If that is their policy, as spelled out in the document, we are entitled to ask—I say this in the friendliest possible way to the hon. Member for Livingston—why they are so coy about informing the House and the public on the implications of it and why they hold it so dear. Why is it a policy that dare not call itself by its name? Why is the hon. Gentleman so reluctant to speak to the policy to which his party has committed itself? We will be listening very carefully to his speech to find out whether what I have said is indeed the case.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is it possible that, in addition to the powerful points that my right hon. and learned Friend has just made, there is a third interpretation of Labour policy—that it totally exaggerates the degree to which this country has been isolated over the past 16 years in the European Union? Indeed, in many respects, we have forged effective alliances in order to advance our national interests, especially in the single market.
Mr. Rifkind: That may indeed be the case. I come to the second possibility that I mentioned. It could be argued by the Labour party that what it meant when it said that Britain would not have been isolated is that it would have agreed with the various policies in which Britain has, under this Government, stood out. Let us look at that question.
It may be that the Labour party had the social chapter in mind. Indeed, we would have been entitled to assume that it was prepared to go unreservedly into the social chapter. But there again, the Leader of Opposition sought to assure the CBI conference when he said:
"The social chapter is not detailed legislation … Each piece of legislation will be judged on its merit. I have no intention whatever of agreeing to anything and everything that emerges from the EU. Proposals are just that: proposals. And they will be examined, with you, on their merits."
What happens if, having been examined, those proposals turn out to be against British interests? Would a Labour Government stand out alone against such proposals? Would they be able to, given that qualified majority voting applies to the social chapter? We have had no statement from the hon. Member for Livingston on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) referred to the areas in which Britain has been isolated over the past 16 years. If the Labour party claimed that it would not have carried forward a policy which would have led to our isolation, I should remind it and the hon. Member for Livingston about some of the issues on which we fought for British interests, even though it required isolation.
It took several years of very splendid isolation from my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, to win the British budget rebate, for example. It has been worth £18 billion to British taxpayers since it was won. When the hon. Member for Livingston comes to the Dispatch Box, will he inform the House whether a Labour Government would have been prepared to be isolated, standing alone in Europe, in order to win that British budget rebate? Indeed, would a Labour
518
Government be prepared to continue to be isolated in defending that British budget rebate, when other member states might seek to have it terminated?
If the hon. Member wants to give me that assurance, I shall happily give way. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that a Labour Government would be prepared to accept isolation to defend the British budget rebate? Would he care to give the House an assurance?
Mr. Robin Cook: May I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I hope to catch Madam Speaker's eye? I shall be making my own speech in my own good time.
Mr. Rifkind: Very well. We have given the hon. Gentleman adequate notice of the information that the House is entitled to know. Would a Labour Government be prepared to accept isolation in order to defend the British budget rebate? That is question No. 1. As he is noting it down, will he note down a number of other similar questions?
The second question is on the Schengen frontier controls. On that, virtually all the member states have accepted that they are going to have open frontiers, that they will not have the sort of controls which we have to combat terrorism, illegal immigration and drug smuggling. The only other country that does not take that majority view is Ireland, because it is so linked to the UK that it could not do so unless the British Government changed their policy. So we are isolated—I have to acknowledge that.
Since the hon. Member for Livingston is noting down these points, will he note down and also inform the House whether a Labour Government would be prepared to see Britain isolated for as long as was required in order to protect frontier controls? Can he make a clear statement on that—no fudge, no equivocation—to the House and the country?
While we are on the subject, will the hon. Gentleman also express some views on his attitude towards defence policy? We may very well be isolated, with many member states saying that the Western European Union should be subordinated to the European Union. A number of countries appear to wish that as a long-term objective. Is that what the hon. Gentleman believes? Or would he be prepared to see Britain isolated, if that was required?
What about qualified majority voting on common foreign and security policy? Would a Labour Government acknowledge the need to go for QMV on that matter? Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to see Britain isolated on that matter?
Those are not unreasonable questions to put to the hon. Gentleman. I put them to him, as I said, in the spirit of trying to have a constructive dialogue across the Floor of the House, so that the House and the country may have a clearer understanding of a policy, to the clarification of which the Labour party up to now does not appear to have given the highest priority in presenting its views.
Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many of the issues on which Britain has been isolated—and rightly isolated—have been those on which people, business men and sometimes politicians in other community states have looked to

519
Britain to fight their corner? Indeed,, some years later, they come round to thank us for having done so, and take up that very position themselves.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Other countries sometimes like to do good by stealth. They give us promises of support which are sometimes less visible on the day than we would like. That is the way of the world, and it does not deter us from what we believe necessary. I shall make a final remark on the Opposition's policy, because it deserves some comment.
Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we could have got a rebate and an opt-out if we had gone into negotiations with our hands tied behind our backs, saying that we were not prepared to be isolated?
Mr. Rifkind: The answer to that is self-evident. Securing the rebate required a great deal of determination and a long period of unpopularity, but the £18 billion from which British taxpayers have benefited as a result makes that isolation entirely justified. That is why we are entitled to ensure that the rebate is protected in years to come.
My next comments also refer to the extraordinary and perhaps historic speech that the Leader of the Opposition made last Thursday. He devoted many minutes to describing the Labour party's policy on Europe. Quite apart from the matters with which I have just dealt, he sought to impress on his audience and on the British public the Labour party's determination, if it formed a Government, to have an exciting new agenda—bringing forward new ideas that others had not brought forward—to give British leadership to Europe.
The Leader of the Opposition said:
"We need to be able to set a positive agenda of our own in Europe. For too long we have been reacting to the ideas of others."
I waited with eager and bated breath to know what exciting new ideas the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party would put forward. Here they are, and I quote the words of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
The right hon. Gentleman said:
"First the enlargement of the European Union to include … Central and Eastern Europe."
There is an exciting new policy, which no one has ever thought of. The right hon. Gentleman also pledged that
"a Labour Government will open negotiations with the first group of these countries in the first half of 1998".
As Europe is considering opening negotiations in 1997, this is not quite the exciting new agenda that we thought the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
What is the second original idea that the Leader of the Opposition has in mind? Again, I read what he said:
"Second we need to make a serious effort to reform the CAP".
Why did the Government not think of that? This is exciting stuff. The Leader of the Opposition brought a third idea to the attention of an excited nation. He said:
"Third we need to achieve stronger economic growth … open competition in aviation, energy and telecommunications and a tougher approach to unfair state aids."
Of course we welcome the fact that the Labour party and its leader have endorsed what has been Government policy for some considerable period. I am especially pleased that the Leader of the Opposition added, as
520
another exciting, new, innovative idea, the desirability of a renaissance of the Atlantic community. I was personally interested in hearing that, and we unreservedly welcome it.
A lot of hot air is coming from the Labour party. There is a desire to deceive the electorate about Labour's true policy on the European Union. I say, again in a spirit of generosity, to the hon. Member for Livingston that I may be wrong. He now has the opportunity to explain at the Dispatch Box the extent to which a Labour Government would be able to avoid isolation, how they would go about that, and which policies they would abandon to avoid isolation. He has the opportunity to give us some greater insights into the exciting new agenda which the Leader of the Opposition has promised us. We all wait with bated breath.
4.52 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary has given the House two speeches. Those of us observing carefully could spot the join—or should I say the absence of join?—between the two speeches when he switched from Foreign Office notepaper to his own. I am bound to say that his own speech was infinitely more interesting, entertaining and parliamentary than the departmental brief. I look forward, therefore, with enthusiasm to the day, which is coming soon, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to go straight to the political speech without having a departmental brief in front of him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Labour's white paper on European policy. I fully intend to answer each and all of the questions he posed to me. I hope that he will be able to tick them off on the little exam sheet that he has in front of him as we proceed.
Before seeing whether I get a pass mark in my examination on my white paper, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that what we are seeing is a reversal of roles between those on the two Front Benches. Those who purport to be the Government are quizzing us on the contents of our white paper while they have yet to decide whether they will have a White Paper on European issues. This morning, I heard the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) announce that there would be a White Paper on Europe.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Rubbish.
Mr. Cook: I heard the hon. Gentleman say on the radio that he had extracted an understanding that there would be a White Paper.
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Cook: Although I do not want the hon. Gentleman to retreat so soon from what we all heard him say this morning, I shall give way.
Sir Teddy Taylor: There was no such statement. I simply said that if there were to be a White Paper, which I expected and hoped for, it would be welcomed very much by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I said that one of the main advantages of a White Paper would be that if we set out our policies clearly and precisely, we could show the wide difference between ourselves and the hon. Gentleman, who simply wants to pass over more

521
power, freedom, authority and responsibility to Brussels. Does he agree that what he said was untrue and should be withdrawn?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman requires any supporting evidence of my statement, he has only to glance up to an area of the House above us, which I cannot refer to without being declared out of order. He should look at the expressions of incredulity on the faces of those who reported him on the radio this morning and on television last night.
So enthused was I by what the hon. Gentleman had told the BBC that on the way to the "Today" programme this morning in my car I found myself composing a little observation—that the Euro-sceptics are now so in charge of the Conservative party that what the hon. Gentleman announces at 7 am the Government will confirm by 4 pm. During the "Today" programme, at 8.15 am, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government had the matter under consideration.
The hon. Member for Southend, East need not be so modest or so shy and retiring. The reality is that he knows that his side of the debate has won the Tory party. He keeps telling us so; he said at the Tory party conference that his side had won. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) said:
"There is no doubt that the Conservative party has shifted decisively in the Eurosceptic direction".
I predict that the shift towards Euro-scepticism will continue. What better proof could we have than the fact that the first time we hear that the Government are thinking of a White Paper is when the Euro-sceptics tell us so.
Even the right hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—I am sorry I have promoted her. No doubt one day, given the continued drift towards Euro-scepticism, she will become a right hon. Lady. Even the hon. Member for Billericay, after the Foreign Secretary's speech at the Conservative conference, said that the Foreign Secretary showed some signs of common sense. It is a measure of the extent to which Euro-scepticism has entered the mainstream of the Tory party that the hon. Lady is regarded as an expert on common sense.
Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour party was completely up to its eyes in the exchange rate mechanism? Does he agree that Labour too has accepted all the implications that went with the disaster that the ERM contained? Does he agree that it led to massive unemployment, the loss of homes and the loss of businesses, as would any commitment to a single currency or any movement towards monetary union, which Labour accepts? Does he not accept, therefore, that the Labour party is riddled with hypocrisy and is misleading the British people about its aspirations to European integration?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has been reminded by his Foreign Secretary that we have a document that went to our conference. It repeated verbatim the words that went to our conference three years ago. Throughout that period, we have consistently said that the test of convergence for the single currency has to be convergence of the real economy—industry, jobs, productivity and output—and not just the financial criteria to which Conservative Members signed up in the Maastricht treaty.
522
I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) because it deserves a full answer. I cannot understand why he and a number of his colleagues feel that the problems in France are a source of smugness for them. First, if the problems are related to the Maastricht treaty, those are their own criteria, which their Ministers negotiated and voted for at Maastricht, and presented to the House.
Secondly, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman, who occupies the right wing of the Tory party, feels that he can take satisfaction in the fact that cutting welfare benefits and rolling back the public sector is as unpopular in France as it has been in Britain, and has made the French Government almost, but not quite, as unpopular as the Government of Britain, whom he supports.
Finally, as the hon. Gentleman follows such matters closely I am sure that, far from being smug about the extent to which the present criteria are causing pain, he will note that only last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing the Government that he supports, went to ECOFIN and supported even tighter measures for the future of the single currency, supported by fines that the Chancellor described as draconian—but as he said that they would not infringe sovereignty, presumably they were all right.
If we have seen one hilarious spectacle in Britain as a consequence of what has been happening in France, it has been the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) writing in The Guardian to express his anxiety about the effects of cuts in welfare benefits.
Mr. Jenkin rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I must make progress.
Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all the hard work that he has put in with the leader of his party since that person committed the Labour party to membership of the single European currency earlier this year.
Hon. Members: Is that it?
Mr. Cook: I confess that the hon. Gentleman's question must be too deep for me, because I did not manage to follow it. However, for his benefit—possibly I was too deep for him—I shall repeat what I said to his hon. Friend. For three years our policy on the single currency has not changed. For three years we have said that the test of whether Britain should join must be based on progress in the real economy, especially convergence in real industrial performance. I understand why Conservative Members do not wish to take that into account, because today's figures show that in the past month industrial production in Britain has fallen by a full 1 per cent.
Mr. Shore: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend is saying about convergence in the real economy. We all know that convergence in the real economy, as distinct from convergence in the monetary economy, is not written into the Maastricht treaty, and that there are no clauses, let alone protocols or other additions, to that effect. I therefore invite my hon. Friend to make it plain that we shall not join the European currency or enter the third stage of the exchange rate mechanism unless and until there is an equivalent treaty obligation, writing in the

523
objectives of output, full employment and other real world criteria that he says should be there. Presumably our acceptance would be contingent on those.
Mr. Cook: I can give my right hon. Friend two assurances. First, when we say that those are our conditions, that is what we mean: those are our conditions. Indeed, I managed to get on to the front page of one of our respected newspapers by saying that we would not necessarily join if our conditions were not met. That seems to me to be absolutely simple English. If those are our conditions, we shall join when they are met—and we shall not necessarily join if they are not met
Secondly, I assure my right hon. Friend that we support the Swedish proposal to write into the treaty of union a commitment on employment. I agree that alongside a commitment to monetary union we need to set objectives for macroeconomic management. It is indeed regrettable that the Government have refused to support that proposal, which now has majority support in the European Union.
Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the French level of unemployment and the budget reductions being proposed by the French Government are a price worth paying for currency union?
Mr. Cook: I personally would have some doubt whether, if I were a Frenchman—[Laughter.] Hon. Members must contain their hilarity. I personally have grave doubts whether the macroeconomic management in France has necessarily been in the interests of the French economy and of French industry. That is a matter for the French people to decide at elections. They chose their Government but, as rapidly as the British people, they have decided that they rather wish they had not chosen them. Given the outcome, I well understand that.
I gather that the right hon. Member for Wokingham will launch another interesting campaign next week. He represents, although now from the Back Benches, the ascendant tendency in the Conservative party. As I said earlier, the Euro-sceptics are in charge.
Mr. Cash: And right.
Mr. Cook: They are certainly on the right of the party; I have no difficulty in concurring with that proposition—and they are in charge.
There is now no hoop so tight that Ministers would not slim down their beliefs in order to squeeze them through it. There is the occasional straggler, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has not yet slimmed down enough to pass through anybody's hoop. Last month he described the demand that there be a commitment to "no single currency in the next Parliament" as barking mad. Right on cue, the right hon. Member for Wokingham proposed to launch a campaign with just such a demand.
By and large, however, such people are only stragglers. In the European debate the Tory party now has the unity of the prison camp, and the hon. Member for Southend, East and the hon. Member for Billericay have the keys. We shall have to wait for the speech—
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady, in the absence—no, gallantry forbids me to explain why I give way to her, but what I was talking about is a perfect subject for the hon. Member for Billericay. However, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Southend, East first. I look forward to his speech, because as he has announced that there will be a White Paper, the whole Chamber will want to hear him tell us what will be in it, because we did not hear that from the Foreign Secretary.
Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am the chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe, a nationwide organisation of Conservatives who are very pro-Europe, and who actively campaign. Many of those people are also members of the European Movement, an all-party group. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is not true that all Conservatives are anti-Europe—far from it.
Mr. Cook: I ask the hon. Lady to be patient and stay to listen—although I am not entirely sure whether she encouraged some of her hon. Friends, who I would have thought might agree with her views, to stay and hear further exchanges, because they are now leaving the Chamber. What she says suggests that there may have been some truth in the observation by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the war was not over on the Tory Benches. If the hon. Lady cares to wait until the end of my speech she may hear something that I wish to address to her and to those of her hon. Friends who share her views.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I really must make progress. If the hon. Gentleman is patient I may reward him later, but I must make some progress with my speech or I shall be in trouble with the Chair.
The Foreign Secretary said, very properly, that the Labour party has produced a white paper setting out our views. [Interruption.] It is quite white. It went through our conference unanimously. I shall give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a challenge, as he offered so many challenges to me. When he produces his White Paper on Europe, let him put it to the Conservative conference and see whether he gets unanimous support for it there.
I shall take the precaution of being present at the conference in the flesh to see what really happens. I shall not rely on Conservative central office sending me a video of it afterwards, since we have discovered how central office took its revenge on the Secretary of State for Defence by editing out his applause. I want to see the uncut version, and see what support there is for any White Paper on Europe that the Government can cobble together.
The Foreign Secretary is right that the Labour party has a White Paper setting out our commitments on Europe and making it plain that we do not favour a federal super-state, but are committed to working together in an association of European countries that come together as independent member states. That is the only way in which we can give our people a stronger economy and a higher quality of environment, and achieve greater freedom for our citizens.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that very point'?
Mr. Cook: No, I shall answer the Foreign Secretary now. With respect to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), he has not yet quite arrived at the seniority of his right hon. and learned Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor have you."] I fear that I can offer hon. Members good odds on my taking over from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the future.
The Foreign Secretary asked me a series of questions about the budget rebate, immigration and foreign and security policy, but he has not read our proposals to the party conference with the greatest care. If he turns to page 11, he will see that we specifically restate our commitment to maintain the principle of unanimity for decision-making on budgetary policy, taxation, external border controls and foreign and security issues—every single one of the issues on which the Foreign Secretary challenged me. It is explicit in our document that we will preserve the principle of unanimity, with which goes the clear implication that, if necessary, we would be prepared to use the veto in any of those areas.
Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that we have extracted from the hon. Gentleman in this House—as opposed to in documents—a statement of the Labour party's position. If we accept what he says, does that not mean that the Labour party would be isolated in Europe on the budget rebate? Does he think that he would get support from the other member states on that matter? On frontier controls, does he accept that a Labour Government would be isolated in Europe? On the opt-out of the single currency that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated, does he accept that a Labour Government would be isolated in Europe? That is what he seems to be telling the House. If that is so, how does he reconcile that with the fine words that he and the Leader of the Opposition have used that a Labour Government would never be isolated in Europe?
Mr. Cook: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman consults the speech that I made in March, he will see that I said that of course there are occasions when one must opt for isolation—[Interruption.] That is by no means a new revelation from me, as I think 600 people were present and heard my original speech, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor as Foreign Secretary. Isolation may sometimes be the necessary price if one is right. It should not be—as it is with the Conservative Government—an ambition for the conduct of foreign policy.
The area of difference between the Foreign Secretary and me relates to those other areas dealt with on the page of the document to which he refers. Since he has raised the matters, let me return to them. First, we will preserve the principle of unanimity in those areas. Secondly, if I may say so to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is a piece of brass neck for the Government to say that they have discovered a new principle and that they are opposed to any extension of qualified majority voting. This is the Government who came to the House and carried through a vast extension of qualified majority voting. They recommended it to the House and voted for it in the House. They put the measure through. Why did they do it?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave an interesting explanation in answering questions last week. He said that it was necessary to
526
introduce qualified majority voting to make progress on the reform of the single market, because otherwise proposals could be blocked by any one country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis)indicated assent.
Mr. Cook: If that is the argument—and I am glad to see that the Minister agrees—that the Government are going to use to justify the extension of qualified majority voting, which they steered through at a time when there were 12 members of the EU, how much more vigorously correct is that argument when we contemplate the enlargement that will take the EU not from 12 members to 15 but from 15 to 25 and beyond?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to inform the House that a Labour Government of which he would be a part would accept that Britain occasionally would have to be isolated if British interests were to be defended. How does he reconcile that with the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who—as I said earlier—said
"Under my leadership, I will never allow this country to be isolated … in Europe."?
Not "sometimes" or "from time to time" but "never". How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with what he has now informed the House—that isolation is sometimes necessary?
Mr. Cook: I can understand the Foreign Secretary's difficulty. He, after all, belongs to a party that is totally isolated in Europe and has no sister party throughout Europe.
Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is isolated.
Mr. Cook: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that neither I nor my party is isolated. We have sister parties in every country of the European Union with which we discuss our position and with which we form alliances. I am perfectly confident that when we take office—as we will—those parties will work with us on a common project of constructive engagement in Europe.
I can assure the Foreign Secretary that one of our first acts in this area when we take office will be to end the shameful isolation into which the Government have boxed Britain over the social chapter, on which their only ally throughout the European Union is the French National Front.
Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robin Cook: I will give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who has been waiting for some time to intervene.
I would rather have the 22 sister parties with which we work—all of which support the social chapter—than the French National Front, who oppose it.
Mr. Riddick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the opt-out from the single currency, which the Prime Minister successfully negotiated, is in Britain's interests—yes or no?
Mr. Cook: At Maastricht, the Prime Minister negotiated the criteria that are set out in the Maastricht treaty. Labour's position is that we will join the single currency and end the opt-out when our tests of convergence are met, but those tests of convergence are not the financial criteria that have caused so much difficulty in France but those of the real economy. We will end that opt-out when we have finally managed, by an industrial programme, to turn around the industry that we will receive from the Conservative party and when we believe that the British economy is ready to compete with the German economy.
I wish to return to the subject of qualified majority voting.
Mr. Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way again. I wish to continue my argument with the Foreign Secretary, rather than with all the Conservative Members behind him.
Mr. Spicer: He should give way.
Mr. Cook: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks it unwise for me to focus on the Foreign Secretary rather than on the rest of the Government. That would tend to suggest poor confidence in the Foreign Secretary.
The Minister of State's argument was that we should have accepted qualified majority voting when there were only 12 members of the EU. We now face a situation where there may be over 20. The least convincing part of the Foreign Secretary's speech was that where he claimed to be on the side of enlargement. It is dishonest to argue for enlargement of the EU while arguing against changing any of its institutions to allow that. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] He did indeed say exactly that.
Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman found the rest of my speech convincing. That is a happy acknowledgement from him, but he must listen to what I say. I made it clear that I took the view that changes would be necessary in the Commission, as it would be absurd if the Commission were to be expanded every time a new member state joined. I accepted that there was a need for the re-weighting of votes to take account of larger and smaller states. The one point I did not, and do not, accept is that there is a need to assume an increase in qualified majority voting, because most of the issues on which we have unanimity require unanimity because they go to the heart of ensuring that member states' vital interests are not affected by the decisions of the Community.
Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary might as well be honest about it to the nation and state that what he is defending is not a British veto but a veto for every new country that comes into the EU. He is defending a Slovakian veto, possibly a Bulgarian veto and certainly a Maltese veto. How is it possibly in Britain's interests that each of those countries should have a veto over areas where we may wish to achieve reform and where we may find—on the Minister of State's own doctrine—that those countries are the ones who are blocking changes that are in Britain's interests?
If the Foreign Secretary wants to sound genuinely enthusiastic about enlargement, he must recognise that there is no prospect of the EU enlarging on the basis of
528
everybody sitting around a table, clutching a veto. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is sincere about wanting those countries in the EU and if he thinks that that would be good for Britain and for Europe, why is he saying to the House that he must keep the veto because those countries will never agree with Britain? I cannot say that I have a deep understanding of it, but I am familiar with how the Government have so often managed to find themselves the odd one out among 15 members. But do they plan on the United Kingdom being the odd one out when there are 25 member countries in the European Union, from Lithuania to Lisbon and from Sweden to Sicily? Will we use our veto to stop what all those other countries have agreed? Are the Government saying that, even in those circumstances, they do not think that they could find a couple of allies to provide a blocking minority? Given the recent record, the Foreign Secretary may be right to say that.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman produces the White Paper he may discover that if it is acceptable to the hon. Member for Southend, East it will not be acceptable to those other countries. That is why the Labour party document, which was presented and accepted unanimously at our conference, most certainly does not leave us isolated in Europe. Our document has broad support in Europe. It gives a clear commitment that we will support jobs as a priority for the European agenda; we will write a commitment to full employment and sustainable development into the treaty of European Union.
We will provide measures fundamentally to reform the common agricultural policy, which has failed to happen so far, so that it ceases to be a means of subsidising unnecessary production and becomes a basis for supporting the income of people in rural economies. That will also bring us into line with other European countries that have recognised—which our Government refuse to do—that the way to achieve competitiveness is not through low wages and low skills but through high investment, technological advances and high skills. A proper social partnership between management and the work force, which is at the heart of the social chapter, would bring us closer to achieving that goal.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I must move towards my close.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has talked about qualified majority voting and about the social chapter. Will he confirm that under QMV it is absolutely impossible to pick and choose what will he put into practice and what will not?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman looks at what has been said in the reflection group, to which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) has signed up, he will see that it rejects the idea of an à la carte Europe. Not only that, many of his other hon. Friends have previously rejected it. The words "pick and choose" were derided in a book six years ago by a very distinguished member of the Government who is now the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State. He made it plain then that we could not have a pick-and-choose Europe. The reason why it is impossible for the Government to find allies when faced with

529
something that they do not want is precisely because the rest of Europe knows that the Government's approach is on a purely pick-and-choose basis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: I shall not give way as I must proceed. I want to ensure that I cover the remarks of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) before I conclude.
The other point that the Secretary of State is fond of making is that we can proceed by a trade arrangement with other countries that will provide us with an alternative to Europe. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fond of parading a commitment to the transatlantic free trade area. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] The hon. Members who have just shouted and the Secretary of State know perfectly well that the route to a transatlantic free trade area lies through Brussels. We may well have a special understanding with America, but it does not want Britain to have less influence in Europe. The United States wants a Britain that is part of Europe and can provide a role in Europe.
On last week's "On the Record" a spokesman from the state department said:
"We would regret a lessening of Britain's power in Europe. Our own dealings with Britain would be less relevant, less vital if Britain's own role was diminished."
Our relationship with the United States and any of the other great powers outside Europe will be determined by how influential we are inside Europe. It is not a formula for success with the rest of the world to be as rude as possible to our immediate neighbours.
There was a time when Ministers would not have waited for that message to be made by the Opposition, but would have been prepared to tell that truth to their Back Benchers. It is a curious feature of Ministers that they have the courage to be isolated in Brussels, but that courage appears to evaporate between Calais and Dover and they show no such boldness in talking about the reality of Britain's need for allies when they confront their Back Benchers. They are prepared to isolate Britain in Europe, but not prepared to isolate themselves in the Conservative party.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I must proceed.
Those Ministers know that the process of isolation on which they have embarked does not match up to the need for co-operation in the modern world. They know that the majority of British exports go to the continent. The Confederation of British Industry has recorded by a majority of three out of five in its recent survey that the recent statements by the Government have been unhelpful in promoting business interests in Europe, our majority market.
Those Ministers know that we cannot protect our environment by concentrating only on national measures: they know that we have to work in co-operation with our partners in Europe. They also know that the most positive development in international politics, both inside and outside Europe, has been the growth in democracy and, with it, the parallel demand for proper human rights. But, at that very moment, voices from the Conservative Back
530
Benches suggest that Britain should withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights although Britain helped to create it. In Britain, some quarters of the Tory party no longer want to live by the standards of that court.
Mr. Butterfill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the European Court of Human Rights is not an institution of the European Community, but the function of a separate treaty which, to our eternal regret, a Labour Government sponsored.
Mr. Cook: Absolutely. My case—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman entirely apprehended it—is that we support the European Court of Human Rights. Conservative spokesmen are arguing the case for decoupling from it.
It has not always been so—there was a time when current senior members of the Government would have argued with Conservative Back Benchers who argue for isolation. I do not know where the Deputy Prime Minister is today, but I know that we never hear those views argued from the Dispatch Box, nor did we hear them from the Foreign Secretary today. If we hear them at all, it is occasionally from voices such as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire and other Tory Back Benchers who know that it is foolish to boast that we must be successful if we are isolated.
Those Conservative Members know that we cannot make a success of our membership of the European Union if we constantly talk as though we wanted it to be a failure. They know that if we have pride and a sense of national identity we need not express it in hostility to the ambitions of other countries and contempt for their politicians—[HON. MEMBERS: "Soundbite politics."] With the greatest respect, I think that I have been speaking for longer than a soundbite. Those Conservative Members know that the Euro-sceptics in the Tory party are the tail wagging the dog. They know that they are a minority, even in a Tory party which itself has only a bare majority in Parliament.
There is a majority in the House for constructive engagement in Europe. There will be no vote tonight—there has been no vote on most nights this week and there will be no vote on most nights next week, as the Government trickle out the most threadbare programme that I have seen in any parliamentary Session in my 22 years in the House. But we shall not complete the year of the intergovernmental conference without a vote on Europe.
There will come a night when those Conservative Members who know that the hon. Member for Southend, East does not speak for all their party will wish to demonstrate. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, there are others who disagree with her. Those Conservative Members will then have to ask themselves whether to vote for what they believe will be right for Britain and Europe or to vote for what they know is wrong as a policy for their party. When they are ready to answer that question, we shall he ready to give them an opportunity to demonstrate their answer and to show that there is a majority in Parliament in favour of Britain's future in Europe and only a minority committed to Britain's future as an isolated island on the margins of Europe and in the backwaters of the global economy.
5.29 pm
Sir Edward Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief speech in this debate.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and, through him, the Prime Minister in no circumstances to make a statement on the position of the British Government before the conference next summer. I have had many experiences of international negotiations and five years of negotiating in Europe. It is impossible for any Prime Minister or leader to lay down beforehand what he must get from negotiation.
In this Parliament, we have long had a tradition, which has been broken occasionally in recent years, that the Prime Minister and the Government decide what they are going to negotiate and what will or will not be acceptable. Having made their judgment and negotiated, they come back to both Houses for their approval. If we do not approve, that is the end of the Government.
I beg the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister not to make statements at any time before the negotiations, however much they are provoked, about their intentions.
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No, I must be brief.
The House and the present members of the European Union know that the first six members had an enormous advantage because, in each country, every political party supported membership. As the number of members increased—it is now 15—in all countries except one, Britain, all parties supported membership. One country that wanted to join was Norway, but it did not have three—party support for membership. It held a referendum, and the Government who had negotiated lost.
I believe that our position can be consolidated for the first time—if we go the right way about it. All three major parties will be agreed about our membership of the European Union. That is essential, because Britain has no future outside the European Union. The statement of an American spokesman just quoted by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) shows that very clearly, and those of us who have had discussions with the leaders of the other members of the Union, and with Americans, know it vividly. Before that statement, President Clinton had announced that he was not interested in a transatlantic free trade area.
I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, whom I greatly admire, that I wish he had not started his first speech as Foreign Secretary by asking for a transatlantic free trade area. The first reason is that the Americans are not interested—they have enough to do to sort out the North American Free Trade Area, especially with Mexico's problems. Secondly, the Americans do not want a transatlantic free trade area, and Europe knows that they do not. Thirdly, from our point of view, his speech made Europe think immediately that we are again trying to ride two horses—that we are not really wholehearted about Europe and that we want to be able to play both sides of the Atlantic together. That is damaging to us.
We should remember that the last negotiation on trade took six years to complete. It was a tough negotiation, and it went only part of the way. The effects of that negotiation will take some time to be felt in business, in
532
trade and in Governments. Further such negotiations will not be possible, even if they were desirable, for many years to come. In the meantime, we must continue the development of the European Union. I hope that too much emphasis will not be placed on a transatlantic alliance, because it raises doubts in the minds of every leader of the Union countries about our real intentions.
There is a possibility of the three parties working out agreements to give us strength in the European Union. I do not believe that this is a matter for party-political warfare before a general election, and I wish that it had not happened in the past. My task in 1960 would have been infinitely easier, and probably successful, if I had been able to persuade Hugh Gaitskell to give me his support. I offered him, as Leader of the Opposition, full information on Privy Council terms from the time I started negotiating, but he refused it. Then, of course, he made his brilliant party conference speech utterly opposing the negotiations. I hope that, with the right attitudes, we will be able to reach agreement.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No, I am sorry.
There are no answers to many of the questions that have been asked so far in this debate. It is not possible to give answers to such challenges or to say what one would do in certain circumstances or why one has not committed oneself. It is not possible, in the circumstances of a major negotiation in Europe, to commit oneself beforehand. It is very unwise to. I hope that we shall adjust our attitude to Europe, because the present situation does not help anybody and doubtless damages us abroad and in the European Union.
We have to ask what the purpose of isolation is. If we are negotiating satisfactorily, we know that if we want our own way—as people say, in our own interests—we must negotiate with other people about their interests. That is what negotiation is all about. Stating our interest, and saying that that is that, is not a means of negotiation. We must ask ourselves what we are isolating ourselves for.
At times, isolation has been deplorable for us. We were isolated on Black Wednesday, when sterling was devalued by 15 per cent. Nobody was prepared to help us because of our attitude on so many other subjects. We were isolated when the Prime Minister, on his own, tried to change the voting system. Nobody else would support the proposal, so it went down the drain. Those are not examples of desirable isolation. There might be cases in which it is desirable, but we have to ask clearly why we are making ourselves isolated on a particular point.
Other matters have been discussed on which we have tended to be isolated—the military activities of the Western European Union, for example. We tend to take the attitude, which others do not, that nothing more must be established in Brussels and that all these activities must be spread around. That cannot be efficient or operationally successful, so we have to ask ourselves why we are taking that attitude instead of moving forward logically and naturally.
Finally, I shall say a few words about a common currency and the opt-outs on it and the social chapter. The effects of the social chapter have been exaggerated out of all proportion. British firms who have subsidiaries in the

533
Union are implementing the social chapter completely. They are extending it to their people here. They have no worries about that.
This country had minimum wage arrangements from 1909 until they were abolished by the Government two or three years ago. We had them through party Governments, through wartime coalitions, through the national Governments of the 1930s, and through the post-war Governments of the two different parties. They were abolished only two years ago. What harm were they doing us all that time? We had times of great prosperity and of problems, but they were not due to our arrangements for minimum wages. The problem can be grossly exaggerated and that does not produce any worthwhile result.
Various requirements, which I think are unrealistic, are being made for the single currency. The requirement is for each member country to be in the same economic position. The hon. Member for Livingston went further than others have done in that respect. It will never happen. It does not happen in the United States. Consider the differences between California, New York and President Clinton's home state: they are enormous. The same will be true of Europe. The pattern can be fitted together successfully into a common currency.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Ministers seem to be getting aggravated.
Sir Edward Heath: I am keeping calm.
The most persuasive point is the fact that there is no single market in the world with more than one currency. Imagine the United States with 51 currencies. Imagine Japan with separate currencies for its constituent islands. It is unthinkable, and the reason is that, with more than one currency, member states cheat by manoeuvering their currencies to deal with their problems at any given time. Indeed, that is what we were accused of on Black Wednesday.
If we are to keep a single market, we must move to a single currency as speedily as possible.
The Foreign Secretary spoke of the huge number of regulations emanating from the Commission from 1990 onwards, and of how the Government have managed to reduce the number since then. The simple explanation is that all those regulations paved the way for the single market. Altogether, 272 regulations were needed to get the single market going. They were therefore desirable, and the Commission cannot be blamed for them. After all, we played a major part in bringing the single market about.
Similarly, for every regulation issued on the single market, 12 were abolished in the member countries—another beneficial effect. The people of this country have been misled about the number of regulations pouring out of Brussels and by the idea that we have somehow succeeded in stemming the flow.
Business and industry in the United Kingdom want a single currency. I know that some of my hon. Friends have issued a statement in which they claim to want to re-educate business. I sometimes feel that we might do better to take more notice of what business people think and want, instead of believing that we can do everything on our own and re-educate business leaders. [Interruption.] There seems to be a lot of noise behind me.
534
Public opinion polls also show that 82 per cent. of business men in this country want a single currency. Why? They know that they will have to send out only one invoice, not 15. That means less expense; it means that they can cut prices and have far less trouble in general. Secondly, they know that speculators would never dare touch a single currency. The trouble with one group going ahead with a single currency, leaving others outside it, is that the speculators will operate against those outside, and that can only be damaging for everyone.
The quicker a single currency is achieved, the better. The decision is continually put off by this country, but the other member countries draw their own conclusions from that: that we are not prepared to take a full part in a single currency or a single market within the European Union.
Ever since its creation, the Community has moved forward in leaps and bounds, sometimes of six years, sometimes of 10, sometimes of eight. That is what must happen now with the single currency; it will require a major leap forward. We cannot just shuffle the problem around, tinkering with various solutions. The whole process must be thoroughly worked out and then put into operation. My point concerns speed; we must not wait for 1999 or 2001 or 2010. If we do, the single market will disintegrate. We shall then lose all the fruits of the work done ever since 1950.
The other member countries will not stand for this. If we are left out, we will find ourselves not splendidly isolated but open to attack from every quarter, and in the end we will lose not just the single market but the European Union. I have seen a great deal of the Union, from its creation onwards, and I have listened to the views of its leaders. It is vital that we understand their point of view. We are kidding ourselves if we believe that they all really want to follow whatever we do. Nothing could be further from the truth. They just think how lucky they are to be saved from our position.
I beg the Foreign Secretary not just to announce what we intend to do and then hope that everyone else will follow. I am sure he will not do that. In any case, it would not happen; it would not work. It would damage our interests enormously. What we need to do is to keep this country, as the Prime Minister said, at the heart of Europe. That means working with the other member countries and negotiating and discussing all the time—not insisting on getting our way for the sake of British policy and British interests. The interests of the Union are our interests and, incidentally, ours are the Union's in the long term.
I think it important that the points I have made be taken into account.
5.45 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) always speaks with great authority on European matters, and with good reason. There is always an element of good sense in what he has to say, but I disagree with him on a number of points, and I had better say what they are.
First, however, I shall say what I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about. I agree that the whole argument about the social chapter has been ludicrously exaggerated. Its importance has been so absurdly overestimated because it meets the convenience of Government and

535
Opposition Front Benchers, who need a bogus political fight on an unimportant part of the treaty so that they can avoid discussing the major, important parts of a treaty on which they are agreed. The really important parts of that treaty deal with economic and monetary union, and with the single currency to which the right hon. Gentleman quite properly addressed most of his speech.
My sources of information differ from those of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that British business and industry are in favour of a single currency. I have with me a survey by the Institute of Export, dated 6 November. Of 1,100 replies to the question,
"Do you wish to see a single currency in the European Union?",
a majority, 54 per cent. of exporters, said no; 36 per cent. said yes; and 10 per cent. were undecided. Whatever that shows, it does not show a majority in favour.
The right hon. Gentleman must also know that it is possible to have a market with open trade without a single currency. Canada, Mexico and the United States operate an open frontier policy under NAFTA for visible and invisible trade, without a single currency and without the slightest prospect of one. I therefore reject the right hon. Gentleman's link between a single market, or an open market, and a single currency.
Sir Edward Heath: I quoted the CBI's figures for industry, and public opinion polls reported in the press. North America does not have a single market; it is a free trade area—in part.
Mr. Shore: We could spend some time on the precise difference between a free trade area and a single market, but not today. I think the right hon. Gentleman accepts the CBI's figures too easily. I do not believe that it accurately represented its questionnaire and the replies to it.
Mr. Jenkin: The CBI's previous survey showed that only 14 per cent. of respondents were in favour of further European integration. That prompts the rather important question: how do we impose a single currency that does not involve further integration on the whole of Europe? This conflict rather suggests that the business men answering the questionnaires are confused by the phrasing of the questions.
Mr. Shore: That may be the explanation.
My major concern, which I believe is shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends, relates to the third stage of economic and monetary union. So far in this debate, there has been no mention of events on the other side of the English channel—a violent deflationary move by the French Government at a time when France is suffering from persistently high unemployment of more than 11 per cent. The total number of unemployed throughout the Union is 18 million. Why are deflationary measures being introduced not only on a large scale in France but elsewhere in Europe? The reason is that all the countries of Europe are trying to meet the convergence criteria laid down in the Maastricht treaty. The French made no pretence of concealment. They feel that they must reach their 3 per cent. target by 1997 to qualify for monetary union membership in 1999.
The French borrowing requirement was 5.6 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1994 and 5 per cent. in 1995, That leaves a gap of 2 per cent. to close in the two years remaining, which roughly works out at a mixture of tax increases and public spending cuts of £20 billion. France
536
is not the only country to have to deflate. Italy, Spain and many other European states are way above the 3 per cent. of GDP threshold and are strongly deflating their economies by cutting public expenditure and raising taxes to converge in the time scale envisaged. If EU countries that I have not mentioned have no difficulty reaching the 3 per cent. criterion, they are caught on the 60 per cent. of national debt criterion. Only two countries could meet the Maastricht treaty criteria—Luxembourg and Germany. The rest are faced with finding some way of conforming to the criteria.
I have not mentioned Britain, but I will. The Foreign Secretary took it all too easily, saying, "Britain's going to be there. We're going to conform." The newly published Red Book shows that in 1995-96, Britain had a 4 per cent. public sector borrowing requirement, representing £29 billion of expenditure. The new forecast for 1996-97 is £22.5 billion and 3 per cent. PSBR. However, the British PSBR is not the same as the general Government borrowing requirement that is used in measuring convergence under the Maastricht treaty. The major difference is that we count into our accounts and PSBR the receipts from assets. The difference between our PSBR and the measure used to conform under the treaty is roughly equivalent to 1.1 per cent. of GDP. Our PSBR target for 1996-97, which is the last year before convergence, is 3 per cent., but it will be more than 4 per cent. by the European Union's accepted measure. Our forecast for 1997-98 is 2 per cent., but on my interpretation it is bound to be at least 3 per cent. and may be more.
It is not the case that Britain will conform just like that. We too face considerable cuts in public expenditure or increases in taxation if Britain is to conform to the rules of the Maastricht treaty and the convergence provisions. European monetary union is not an easy option for the UK either, which also has major problems of high unemployment—although I willingly concede that the figure is not as high as in France, Spain, Italy and certain other EU states.
As to my own party's approach, I will refer to arguments used in the past and those deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) this afternoon. When we debated the Maastricht treaty, Labour's Front Bench spokesman argued, "The targets of 3 per cent. and 60 per cent. are just guidelines or approximations. There is plenty of flexibility. If things get difficult, there will be no holding us to account on 3 per cent. and 60 per cent." I wonder what the people who made that argument have to say about Herr Waigel's stability pact, which was proposed to the French on 13 November. It allows for a 1 per cent. GDP borrowing requirement, and it argues for and claims an automatic fine on any country that exceeds the 3 per cent. GDP borrowing requirement. If that rule had been in force, and taking into account our behaviour over the past two years, we would have already paid the European Union a fine of £16 billion, which does not make sense. I hope that I have dealt with the ludicrously optimistic argument used in the Maastricht debate, unfortunately, by the individuals who spoke for the Labour party at that time.
Another get-out is used in the document that went before the Labour party conference in October, which has been quoted. It invests a great deal in supporting the Delors white paper, as though it offsets in some way the deflationary effects in not only Britain but Europe

537
generally of converging with the treaty criteria. Dare I mention those famous trans-European networks and other things? The sum total of all those expenditures in relation to stimulating the GDP, output and employment of the European Union is negligible. It does not meet the needs in terms of quantity, amount—although the figures are confused—or the time scale in which those expenditures will take place. In general, they comprise large investment that will take years to come to fruition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston spoke helpfully about convergence in the real economy. He was insistent, when answering the questions that I put to him, that there will have to be convergence in the real economy. When I pointed out that nothing about that appears in the Maastricht treaty, he said, "That's too bad for the Maastricht treaty. We are going to have our convergence, otherwise we will not sign up." That is most welcome.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the Swedes have proposed that employment criteria should be written into the revised treaty. I like that idea, but one must be realistic about the degree of support that it will enjoy. Sweden may vote in favour. The incoming British Labour Minister will vote for it. What about the rest? I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston is not in his place. Is he not aware that during the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty there were allegedly socialist Governments in France, Spain and Italy? I would not like to say where those Governments are now when it comes to the law. However, three major socialist Governments who were involved in the Maastricht treaty were unable to secure agreement on the articulation of a high level of employment, let alone full employment, anywhere in the treaty. Why does my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston think that we have only to clap the Swedes on the back and say, "We are with you"? Does he think that in no time we shall be able to convince the other member states to write in the new convergence criteria in the real economy, including a commitment to full employment?
I find that events and comments are moving helpfully against the single currency. Our experience in the exchange rate mechanism in September 1992 is still vivid in our minds. I assure the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who preceded me, that it was not a matter of letting Britain be isolated. In a sense, thank heavens that we were not supported at the then rate of exchange. Imagine that there had been funds available in Europe to prop up the pound at 2.95 against the deutschmark. What would be the level of unemployment in Britain now? The ERM was folly and thank heavens we escaped from it. Are we to expose ourselves to it again? We would have to do so two years before the move to a single currency. We have seen what it has done to France. Political disorders, let alone economic, may ensue. We would be mad to countenance such a move.
I am not sure about tactics but I would keep our opt-out. We might weaken our position in saying no to joining a single currency on the present criteria if we do not maintain our opt-out.
It is interesting to see opinion on the move in Britain and elsewhere. An influential commentator from the Labour party's point of view is an excellent journalist who writes in The Guardian, Will Hutton. He is the author of
538
"The State We Are In", a well-received book. Will Hutton convinced himself—no doubt he hoped to convince some of my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench—that we should join a single currency. He is generally an enthusiastic Euro. It is interesting that he has now come to a different conclusion. On 2 November, he wrote:
"The deflationary effects of the Maastricht ambition to create a single currency must not become so overriding that they create the very social division and friction they were intended to heal."
There is some foresight there. He continued:
"If Maastricht is seen to be the cause of the dismantling of the welfare system and the social wage upon which millions of the poorest in Europe have come to depend, then it will spark inevitable populist backlashes." Will Hutton sensibly adds:
"The creation of a single currency by 1999 with its convergence criteria needs to be put aside—in its place might be a parallel currency and a loose exchange mechanism, but anything more would be destabilising."
I welcome the conversion of an influential columnist and writer in my party.
Published in November, again, were the opinions of two gentlemen whom I greatly respect. Brian Hopkin was chief economic adviser to the Government during my time, 1974-79, and possibly slightly before the Labour Government took office. He wrote an article with Brian Reddaway, who is a professor of economics at Cambridge. The argument is summarised as follows:
"if, as proposed under Maastricht, a single European currency were created and an Independent European Central Bank given control over monetary policy, the arrangement would be likely to disintegrate, or require drastic reconstruction, because the results of its operation would be found intolerable".
That is the opinion of two men of considerable distinction. Their opinions are well worth recording.
I hope that my Front Bench colleagues, as well as Ministers, will think again, and extremely hard, about their commitment to a European single currency. I know that we have set a condition. It could be an important one because it could be the way out of the commitment. The condition of convergence in the real economy is very much worth having. Let us adhere to that. Let us not weaken our position in any way in subsequent legislation.
The intergovernmental conference that is about to open in Madrid will last for at least 18 months. My Front Bench colleagues should be aware that the victors at the next general election will go to Madrid to negotiate the final settlement. That is where a special responsibility falls. That applies to the Government who are playing their hand now and to my Front Bench colleagues, upon whom will fall the great burden and duty of getting things right in the kind of Europe with which we can live as opposed to the Europe that would destroy so much of that in which we believe.
6.6 pm
Mr. David Howell: It is a pleasure to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He has brought the debate about Europe several stages nearer to reality after the acrobatic performance of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who was so brilliantly exposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

539
I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney began by reminding us that while we all debate the lesser matters that come before Euro summits, as the stage army moves from one capital to another, there are some seismic shifts taking place within the European scene. The situation would be comic if it were not rather worrying for those of us like myself who believe strongly in European unity but who think that the rush to Madrid is to get to the name of the new currency.
I do not know which journalist it was, but he had a real touch when he reminded us in the press of the adage that the more sickly the child the quicker the christening. That is very much a summary of where we are now in terms of the great emu bird or chicklet which, in my view, will never fly. If it does, it will fall rapidly to the ground. More of that in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that the deal, the arrangement or the settlement, even that which prevails from Maastricht, has now begun to unravel. It is not a matter of thinking about France alone, although that country is certainly in all our minds. The tensions are colossal. The agonies of decision facing the French political establishment must be awful. Whichever way it turns, whether it gives in or not, it will be faced with endless pressures and difficulties.
It is not only France that is in difficulties. In Austria, a veering to the hard right continues at great speed. Who knows what the elections in a few days' time will produce? There is almost extreme vocal opposition to the European Union and all its workings.
The situation in Sweden, as has been mentioned, is one of grave hostility to the European Union, which it has joined, and now it proposes—it is probably completely impractical but it is a measure of its desperation—to bung in a series of extra provisions to the Maastricht criteria which, they say, will somehow restore the popularity of the European Union. It will not.
The reflections group, in which my hon. Friend the Minister played such a distinguished and excellent part, has just reported, and if the proposition is that the Maastricht treaty should be revised, that would require a referendum in some countries. France is not compelled to hold one, but several other countries are and the referendums will be lost. If we continue on the present path and the state of flux continues in Europe, ahead lies the prospect of a severe threat to the single market, and the European unity that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) spoke about and for which he had fought would be at risk—not from the Euro-sceptics, the Euro-critics and others who say that things are going too fast but from those who have fanatically pressed ahead with federalist confections.
I was interested to read a comment in the Italian press yesterday about the reflections group. When Italian officials were asked whether they were worried that, apparently, the British had been isolated—in the commentary there was much talk about one country not liking this and another not liking that—the answer was that that was not the worry. The countries that stood against these matters had played a positive part and the real enemy was the fundamentalists. The people who are really the wreckers are those who press for extreme measures in the European system and propose the great leap forward—another terrifying analogy, as we all know where great leaps forward invariably lead—in it.
540
Those are the things that the House should now be worried about—certainly those of us who support the European process in broad terms, as I have always done. Some items threaten to destroy the European system. That threat gets more dangerous all the time, and if it is not curbed by the British Government, among others, speaking out bravely and boldly—I hope that they will have a White Paper of principle, not on the negotiating detail, as that would be absurd—we shall look grimly on the disintegration of European stability, which has never been in the interests of this country and for which we have fought over hundreds of years, long before anyone thought of the Common Market or the European Union. I am talking about the single currency, which is a very divisive project indeed.
The proposition is that new barriers should be put up to cope with the interface between the countries that are inside the inner core and those that are outside. There is also the proposition for stability pacts and fines, and compensation for the French textile and motor industry, because they would not be able to cope with the competition from the more competitive currencies. There is also the theory that the Italians, who were one of the founder members of the European Common Market, as it was, may be excluded unless there is a fudge. The German electorate is determined that there should not be a fudge, and if there is, it will take its money out of the deutschmark and into the Swiss franc, and so on.
Those are divisive issues on their own, and unless, as I think the Prime Minister said yesterday, they are handled with the greatest sensitivity and care—much more than any indication from some of the blind enthusiasts for the single currency—they will do irreversible damage to the European ideal and to the European single market. They will also blow back on another aspect about which one is entitled to have increasing worries—the European budget and financial structure. We have already heard that enlargement—enthusiasm for it in Brussels seems to be disappearing rather fast—with the present common agricultural policy would add £18 billion to £21 billion a year to the cost for all European contributors to the system, which, of course, would be an intolerable burden. We know also that if we go ahead with monetary union, which would rule out any kind of limited flexibility in exchange rates, the structural and cohesion funds would be vastly increased. We are talking about the prospect of doubling the cost of Europe to the contributors. I do not believe that any Government who tried to double the cost of the European project and impose it on their electorate would survive very long. They would be rapidly turned out of office. These are divisive issues, and the worst thing of all is the threat that they pose to the enlargement process.
I hope that no one will say—I am afraid that they will—that the British position, because it appears to be isolated, is anything other than extremely positive. The hon. Member for Livingston got into a bit of a fix when nailed by my right hon. Friend over the fact that the Labour party, apparently, is against being isolated in principle, but when it comes to the detail he is prepared to be isolated on one or two things. I give him a little comfort in that in a race one is isolated if one is running behind, but also if one is running ahead. We need to do a great deal of running ahead. We should not he reluctant as a Government, Parliament or country to be prepared to run ahead, without having our European credentials

541
automatically questioned, and to make an angry and vigorously positive case for creating the kind of Europe that will stay together and not be rent by these bitter arguments and be undermined by absurd, overcentralisation and false economic arguments of the kind that say that a single market must have a single currency. That is an utterly out-of-date proposition, belonging more to the 19th century and to ancient monetary doctrines than to the modern world.
I believe that the positive position for Britain is there to be made. We have our commitment to enlargement. It is not an afterthought. We are not just saying that it would be nice to bring in the new democracies. The central purpose of the European Union is that it should embrace the whole of Europe. Any backsliding on that must be utterly rejected. If it is said that we cannot do it because we cannot reform the CAP, we must reform the CAP. If it said that we cannot do it because the structural and cohesion funds are wrong, that they would be too expensive, we must look again at the whole structure of those funds.
We must apply our minds much more vigorously than some of our colleagues are prepared to do to enlargement in the IGC. We must apply our minds to subsidiarity much more vigorously, which in my book always meant much more than just saying, "No more centralisation". It means unravelling some of the existing competencies and commitments to centralisation. I know that the debate is between the parties, and it may be slightly blown up and exaggerated, but I have never understood why social policy, which is so sensitive and needs to be so carefully geared to the details and instances of shop floor operation, is amenable to the generalisations and grand principles that are spreading across the European Union. I know that there are some ideas in the social chapter that the Opposition like, but the proposition that our social policy should be "desubsidiarised" and centralised in this way always seemed to me to be miles away from the reality. Subsidiarity is a matter on which we have a lot more to say, and I hope that we will say it with great vigour.
Then we come to the European Court of Justice, about which my hon. Friend managed to make some excellent references in the reflections group report. Clearly, there must be changes to make it a genuinely balanced court of adjudication and much more sensitive to national judicial systems than it is at present.
On the Commission itself, we have tiptoed around the issue of whether its powers are properly defined. Can we stop the "communitisation" that is stretching out into the pillars of justice, home affairs and common foreign security policy in a way that is very undesirable and is very unpopular in Europe? It is not just Britain that thinks that it is unpopular; many countries do and it should be resisted.
Then we come to the matter, which really is one for us in the House, of how we fit national Parliaments into the scheme of things. Everyone pays lip service to that. It is in the Maastricht treaty and in every speech that is made by a political leader, but nothing much comes out of it.
I was full of admiration for the excellent comments in the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I see that its Chairman, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), has a speech there, so he will probably be speaking on it in a moment. His Committee made an interesting proposition to the effect
542
"that national parliaments might suggest amendment or rejection of legislative proposals, and that if a prescribed proportion of parliaments made such suggestions, this would have implications for the decision-making procedure in the Council."
In other words—I leave the hon. Gentleman to explain it in more detail—if certain legislative instruments or potential legislative instruments were put before all the national Parliaments, before they were rushed on into the statute law of each member state, and a number of Parliaments gave the thumbs down, those propositions would be rejected. That is an ingenious and good start, not bringing national Parliaments into the European legislative process but asserting our own legislative rights and powers before measures suddenly turn up on our own statute book.
Britain has put forward a range of extremely positive European ideas. If, when we first put forward a new idea we are isolated because we are ahead of the pack, so what? It is an absurd line of attack by the Opposition to criticise the concept of isolation. It is necessary to be isolated to make any progress with new ideas. The British stand, as reflected in the reflections group, and as I hope will be reflected in the IGC, is one of innovation, is pro-European, is pointing the way to keeping Europe together, and is in contrast to those who pretend to be good Europeans and parade their ideas as good Europeans, but in fact are proposing measures which would divide Europe, destroy the single market and undermine everything that we have fought for over the years.
6.21 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The machinations of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in his position as a senior Back-Bench Conservative Member of Parliament, are a fair reflection of the difficulties within the Conservative party. Although the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Secretary are fundamentally pro-Europeans, it was also self-evident from the Foreign Secretary's speech that they must dress up their pro-Europeanism these days in fundamentally sceptical language.
It is rather depressing to watch that going on. The net result is that the sceptics are more and more driving policy, and that is bad for the Tory party, for the Government and for the country.
Mrs. Currie: It may be an entirely rare occurrence, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is not a single Euro-sceptic on the Conservative Benches. There may be on the Opposition Benches, but not here.
Mr. Kennedy: There are certainly Euro-sceptics, if that is a term of description, endearment or abuse to which they would answer, on the Labour Back Benches, but there is an important Euro-sceptic on the Conservative Benches, and that is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), who will be replying to the debate. That is the most fundamentally depressing of all.
The people in the reflections group taking the decisions and making the interventions on behalf of Britain—in this case, the Minister of State—are delivering speeches there that are targeted not at fellow Ministers in the reflections group but, unfortunately, at the domestic Conservative

543
audience back at Westminster and the other parts of the Tory party across the country. That is fundamentally depressing and not helpful.
The Foreign Secretary and his shadow go back a long way. They have been debating with each other and enjoying debating with each other since their earlier political incarnations, when they were both operating at elected level in Edinburgh. The mutual sophistry showed through. The position of those on the Front Benches of the Labour party and the Conservative party is somewhat cynically similar on many matters.
For example, on the issue of enlargement, the Conservatives will the ends. They say that they are in favour of enlargement. They do not appear willing to will the means, which will have to be a logical extension of qualified majority voting.
The Labour party says, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did this afternoon, that it wishes to see the achievement of a single currency, but the means by which that would be achieved are means that it knows will not be realised. The Swedish proposal is unlikely, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman outlined with great lucidity, to be in the ascendancy in the Union.
Even if it was, there are unlikely to be the further criteria that the Labour party has been saying should be written in. It knows that the criteria will never formally be on the agenda, so it is easy for a Labour Front-Bench spokesman to keep both ends happy by saying that the Labour party wills the objective, knowing that the hurdle that would have to be crossed to obtain that objective never will be crossed. Therefore, we have a degree of mutual cynicism which is not helping the debate in the House.
As we approach the IGC, I hope that the debate will be helped by two sets of events which have not been discussed in this debate at all—one is Northern Ireland and the other is Scotland. Britain has an unwritten constitution. It is deeply unsatisfactory, but it is there, and it is unwritten. The Prime Minister, along with others, is making valiant efforts in favour of the Northern Ireland peace process. We wish him well, and we hope that that meets with success.
If it does, the Government's stated position is that they would wish to see some form of elected body re-established in Northern Ireland. I agree with them. That is a good policy, for which it is worth aiming. But if that success is attained, the minute some form of elected political legislative body is reinstituted in Northern Ireland, the status and rights of Northern Ireland Members vis-a-vis other Members of the House are affected.
Equally, Scotland last week saw the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and others launch the Scottish Constitutional Convention blueprint for re-establishing a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. If we go down that route, it will have major constitutional implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I welcome the fact that those other items are on the British political agenda. They will be deeply relevant to the IGC.
However much Ministers may wish to persuade us that it is not the case, Europe is developing in a decentralised way. We want to encourage that tendency. The great chance of the IGC is to give Europe and the European project a firm push in the direction of more decentralisation, more democracy and more diversity across the nations and the regions of Europe. That means
544
the very principle to which the Government pay lip service, subsidiarity, being applied not just at European level but within the member states of the European Union.
For example, it means that subsidiarity is not a principle that ceases to have any constitutional, political or legal validity the minute one crosses the English channel. It is a principle which the Government are willing to apply in the context of Northern Ireland, and which the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party would wish to see applied in the context of the English regions, Scotland and Wales. It needs to be applied within the United Kingdom and throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that the IGC will be a heaven-sent opportunity to move the debate in that direction.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I would welcome it if the Government were to produce a White Paper setting out their vision of Britain's future in Europe. It may be a rather short one, if that is the task that they are setting themselves. There was no hint of vision in what the Foreign Secretary said today. If they bring such a publication forward, it would be in Britain's best interests if it contained four important principles.
The first is unequivocal support for United Kingdom participation in the development of Europe, deepening it and in due course widening it. The second is a determination to play our part as a country in making the European Union more decentralised, more democratic. The third is an active role for Britain, which we have effectively, in large measure, so far eschewed in preparation for a single currency.
The right hon. Member for Guildford is right to say that no one can predict deadlines for the likely developments on a single currency. In many ways, the most significant feature of the Chancellor's Budget statement was his specific reference to the Maastricht criteria. He is clearly not ruling out the possibility, which is a sensible stance. Given what the Prime Minister said at Question Time this afternoon, however, it is clear that, if the process takes place, it would be insane for this country not to be part of it.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Why?
Mr. Kennedy: Trying to run the pound sterling alongside a single European currency while we were still part of a single market would have as much validity as an attempt by Manhattan to run a separate dollar from the rest of the United States. That is not the real world.
Mr. Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, in a single market, the only way in which a laggardly economy—or one that is not competing with the most successful—can insulate itself and take shocks that would otherwise result in unemployment is through the exchange rate? That is the current experience of Canada and Mexico in the single market in the North American Free Trade Area; it was also the experience of Ireland, which cut its ties in 1979 when sterling was rising too far in a defective single market.
Mr. Kennedy: That last example is the worst that could be cited. In fact, Ireland is rather enthusiastic about the project, and wants to be part of a single currency in due course.
Competitive devaluation—or the prospect or option of such devaluation—is hardly a good basis on which to run an economy. It is not part of any Government's policy to

545
keep competitive devaluation in the back locker to use when all else has failed; that should not be what democratic Governments are about, whatever their political complexion.
The single currency is often associated with the loss of sovereignty. In real political day-to-day terms, the country would experience a far greater loss of sovereignty and clout internationally if a single currency were introduced and we were not part of it, than if there were not such a currency at all.
Fourthly, as well as playing an active role in European monetary union, we should learn the lessons of Maastricht, which have been referred to. The House did not cover itself in glory during that exercise. There was never any proper debate; the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and I sat through hours of discussion, and all too often—whichever section of the treaty was being dealt with—we would hear a defensive speech from a Minister and a cagey speech from the Opposition Front Bench, but no real debate, because there was no difference between the Front Benches in regard to the fundamentals. The debate would then take place on the Back Benches.
There are two lessons to be learned from that. First—I voted for this at the time, and I hope that, if the IGC proves to have constitutional implications, we will pursue the policy—we should have had a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. The matter should have been debated openly, in public. The House failed to achieve that at the time.
Secondly, some of the Labour party's clever tactics—or so they appeared then—may now be viewed with some dismay in retrospect, and seen for the mistakes they were. By concentrating on the social chapter—which served both Front Benches only too well—and building up the Conservative Euro-sceptics, Labour helped to create a monster that is now increasingly out of control and doing immense damage to our position in Europe.
It would be good to see the Government taking a far more positive role, but I do not for a moment think they will. They are locked into a vortex of Euro-scepticism, in which the only audience that counts is the section behind them and the electorate; they are not concerned with the long-term interests and future of Britain, and Britain within Europe.
Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, although I was about to end my speech.
Mr. Spearing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given way, because my intervention relates to his party. There are sceptics and divisions in both the two main parties, but—with, perhaps, one exception—the hon. Gentleman's party wishes to "move ahead". Given all the troubles and difficulties that we see directly across the channel—and perhaps in other European countries as they try to meet the required terms—why is a single currency so essential? We have had first the common market and then the single market, with all their supposed benefits;
546
why must people press ahead, as the hon. Gentleman is, to achieve something that leads to so much trouble, dissent and perhaps disunity?
Mr. Kennedy: I do not want to become involved in a long discussion about the current problems in French politics, but I believe that there is more to those problems than the Maastricht convergence criteria.
Let us consider the credibility difficulties experienced by our Government over the tax issue since the last election, when they had to go back on their promises. Those difficulties pale into insignificance in comparison with the credibility problems of the Gaullist Administration, who promised 18 impossible things before breakfast in the run-up to the election, and have disallowed each and every one of them at a rate of knots since that election. I believe that France's difficulties have much more to do with that than with the perception being peddled in some quarters that the French citizenry have suddenly taken to the streets because of the Maastricht convergence criteria.
Let me also tell the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that anyone who talks to those involved in business and industry will be left in no doubt that the superficial attractions of competitive devaluation are outweighed by the long-term steadiness of knowing what the exchange rate will be in relation to other currencies. For many a small business, that still makes the difference between boom and bust.
I am not talking about the ICIs and Shells of this world, but about the small business sector. I believe that, in due course, it is that sector that will drive the single currency issue forward. As and when the currency arrives, we should be part of it.
I advocate a positive and constructive role for the IGC, but I am not at all optimistic. I think that, if the IGC does prove to have constitutional implications for the country, we should reconsider the possibility of a referendum to make the debate public, and to marginalise—as we are not managing to do in the House of Commons—that part of the Tory party, in particular, that seems to exert excessive influence on the Government of the day.
6.36 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I must take issue with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—as he would probably expect me to—following his suggestion that the "sceptic" element is now driving our party policy. He knows very well, as, I think, does the whole House, that there is a good streak of scepticism in every hon. Member, just as there is in the country as a whole. Everyone has reservations about aspects of the European Union. It is a question of degree: there is a measure of scepticism in everyone.
I also take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). In discussing the single currency, he used the analogy of the United States and Japan, pointing out that both those great economic areas had a single market and a single currency. They also have one Government, however, and we do not want that in Europe. We are happy to have a single market and to trade as we do; we are happy to have political links. What we do not want is a single currency that could lead rapidly to a single Government. I do not think that the British people would vote for that, although I accept that it is Liberal party policy.

547
Much has been said today about the possibility of a White Paper on the future development of the European Union. Hon. Members may recall—certainly, my hon. Friends will—the publication of two documents a long time ago. One was called "The Right Approach"; the other was called "The Right Approach to the Economy". Both were published by the Conservative research department. Those two documents set our party on the road to victory in the late 1970s.
A sequel has now been published, entitled "The Right Approach to Europe". That document, also produced by the Conservative research department, was on the bookstalls before this year's Conservative party conference. It set out clearly the principles on which our party is addressing the European Union's development, and led to the considerable degree of agreement at that conference, when many political opponents were expecting and hoping for a split right down the middle. Today's debate has shown a split over Europe, not in the Conservative party, but clearly in Labour party, whose Front-Bench team seems to be split in two.
Our party conference debates also demonstrated that clear blue water exists between the Conservative party and the other parties on the important issue of the development of European union. The policies that the Conservative party has adopted go much more with the grain of public opinion than those of any other.
The choice before the British people is absolutely clear: if one wants a federal Europe, one votes Liberal Democrat; if one wants a centralised Europe, run out of Brussels, one votes Labour; and if one wants a Europe of nation states, working together when appropriate, but where the major decisions affecting Britain's future are taken in Britain, one votes only Conservative.
I and the country at large will endorse that if it ever comes to a vote, but, before anyone gets too excited, I should say that, when the time comes to visit the hustings, there will not be all that many votes on the question of Europe. If, however, it is one more issue where Conservative Members are more with the grain of public opinion than our opponents, one or two critical marginal constituencies will fall to us rather than to the other two main parties.
Most of today's speeches have concentrated on the politics and economics of the European Union, and some speeches will no doubt touch on foreign policy, too, but I want to concentrate on security—both the architecture for security and the mechanics for it. I hope that hon. Members will note that I use the word "security", not "defence", because common foreign and security policy will be discussed at the intergovernmental conference, and the thing about security is that it stretches beyond merely defence.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made an interesting suggestion during his speech. In discussing economic development, he referred to the possibility of a European Mediterranean free trade area. That is precisely what I mean.
To give an example on the question of the security of Europe, the Select Committee on Defence has been considering the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and its southern flank. We realise that, in discussing the security of Europe, we must look beyond the boundaries of the European Community and of NATO. If we cannot within the European Union have
548
generous and free policies on trade, we will not succeed in meeting the economic needs of developing nations outside our area.
Without that success, we will not be able to avoid the political and economic conditions that can eventually lead to economic breakdown, to civil disobedience, to internal conflict, to terrorist activity, to insurrection and then, as sure as night follows day, to external military adventures. When we discuss security, therefore, we must think in terms of the European Union doing its best to help the developing countries on our borders.
That is probably the most effective way of preventing strife, and will do more to defend Europe's nation states than having just a mass of military weaponry and men under arms. That matter was dealt with on 26 and 27 November during the Barcelona conference of Ministers. I should like to hear what is said about that matter in the winding-up speech.
In discussing the question of security, there is also the matter of the spread of drugs and of mass immigration—both extremely sensitive matters. North Africa is a region of considerable insecurity. Countries there, in common with many others, have problems of over-population and of shortage of water. In trying to anticipate from where trouble may come, one will find that there is a common denominator in and a close link between shortage of water and over-population, and potential flashpoints for strife.
What do we want to emerge from the intergovernmental conference in relation to security? The first question involves the Western European Union's future development. I regret that we ever changed the name of the European Economic Community to the European Union, because there is a great deal of confusion in people's minds, and they automatically connect the two. The WEU is not new—we should remind ourselves of that. It is based on the Brussels Treaty Organisation of 1948. It was modified in 1954, and it includes a mutual security undertaking, exactly like that involving NATO in article V of the Washington treaty.
Admittedly, the WEU had become a bit moribund, but it was reactivated in 1984 as the European pillar of NATO. The Maastricht treaty gives the WEU a dual role—first, as that NATO pillar, and secondly, as the European Union's defence component. We must decide the extent to which it is complementary to the NATO commitments, or if there is a danger that it will result in the duplication and undermining of NATO.
The types of task that the WEU expects its military capabilities to be employed on were set out in the 1992 Petersburg declaration. Those are crisis management, combat operations, peacekeeping, including embargoes and sanctions enforcement, humanitarian rescue missions and evacuations. Those tasks could effectively be undertaken by European Union member states, either singly or in partnership. They do not need the WEU to provide a co-ordinating authority for those tasks to be done.
It is significant that many of those tasks cannot be undertaken without help from NATO, in particular the United States of America. For some of them to be achieved, one needs intelligence and surveillance. Often, one needs heavy lift, either by air or by sea, and logistical support. My first conclusion, therefore, is that there should be no new WEU full membership without full membership of NATO.

549
The WEU has 14 members and four observers—Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland, which are all already European Union members. Of course, those four countries jealously guard their neutrality. How would they feel if there were a common EU defence policy? They would not be too happy.
What about the nine countries that are associate WEU members—the Visegrad four, the three Baltic countries, Bulgaria, Romania—and, of course, with the United States and Canada, the only two non-WEU NATO members, sitting on the sidelines? It is significant that, if the EU and WEU were merged, as some people advocate—it seems that it is beginning to emerge that the Labour party supports such a merger—and if it were necessary for new WEU members already to be full NATO members, the United States of America would effectively have a veto over additional applications to join the EU, which is totally dotty.
The other thing that must be decided at the IGC is whether the EU and the WEU integrate, or whether there should at least be a subordination of the WEU to the EU. Again, the Labour party seems to be split on that matter. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did not answer the direct question put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps we will hear an answer in the winding-up speech.
It is suggested that the United Kingdom stands alone in opposing a merger between the European Union and the WEU. That is not so. There is a great deal of reservation among other member states. When the Select Committee on Defence was in the Iberian peninsula recently, we were interested to hear from our Portuguese friends—Britain's oldest ally—who said:
"The fundamental rule we believe should be retained is the principle of national sovereignty in defence issues … we cannot imagine how declarations of war could be decided by majority voting."
That sets out the matter clearly—NATO and the WEU already operate by consensus, not by majority voting. It is impractical to have a merger of the WEU and the EU.
The IGC could also help with the clarification of the different security organisations that exist currently, and to establish what their roles should be. We have the WEU. We had the CSCE—the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, which is now the OSCE—the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—because it is an operating body. Under NATO, we have the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, the North Atlantic Council and the partnership for peace. It has been suggested that we might have a CSC-Med, which might not be a bad idea. There is scope for a fresh look at the different structures we require for security in the light of the peace dividend and the collapse of the iron curtain.
There could be a little tidying up of some of the force structures. The combined joint task forces were launched at last year's NATO summit for Euro-led missions. There is the EuroCorps, EuroFor, EuroMarFor and FAWEU—the forces available to the WEU. There are many different structures, and there is a great deal of overlap. There are many different headquarters, and a large number of staff.
One of the problems may be that, although we got rid of a lot of soldiers, sailors and airmen when we rationalised our armed forces across Europe, we are left
550
with too many generals, air marshals and admirals. I sometimes feel that they do not have enough to do except sit in headquarters trying to invent new enemies. It is extremely urgent to clarify the European security and defence identity.
The problem with NATO is that it has effectively concluded its mission. It succeeded in keeping the Americans in, as we say, and keeping the Soviet Union out. I am glad that France is now back on many of the NATO committees. That might begin to undermine the argument that the main role of the WEU is to keep the French on side. The time has come to review all those various organisations. NATO in particular needs to think about its future role. It has 60 different headquarters in its area of activity, which cannot be economic. The time has come for a full review.
The best way to prevent war—that is what security is all about—is through trade and economic growth. We should never forget that that has been the principal objective of the European Union from the days of the founding fathers.
My last thought is about the recently announced appointment of Mr. Javier Solana as Secretary-General of NATO. That is as good an example of poacher turned gamekeeper as I have ever known. It probably shows in political terms a greater U-turn than that performed by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). If Mr. Solana can persuade his countrymen to vote to come within the integrated military structure of NATO, he will have earned his place as the Secretary-General of one of the most important defence structures in existence.
6.54 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: As Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I welcome this debate. Although there has not been much mention of our report so far, I am sure that the Minister would like to say a few things when he replies to the debate.
In my brief contribution I hope to be as pragmatic as usual. I am tempted to deal with some of the issues that have been raised in earlier contributions, but I feel that it would be more helpful if I confine my remarks strictly to the report. That may provide more emphasis for the issues that we have addressed during our inquiries.
I want to thank my Committee and its staff for the work that they have put into preparing the report. My Committee has 16 members—nine Government members and seven Opposition members. There is a wide range of views, from that of the Euro-sceptics to that of the Euro-fanatics and the Euro-agnostics—of course I am referring only to Government members when I say that. In spite of that wide range of views, there has been tremendous co-operation during our work and during preparation for the publication of our findings, and I should like to record my appreciation for the excellent work carried out by my colleagues.
It is important that we recognise the tremendous work of our staff, including the clerks, advisers, and the secretariat. It is not usual to name individuals, but I want to mention my senior clerk, Robert Rogers, whose expertise in European legislation has no equal. Our findings owe a great deal to his valuable contribution. I record my appreciation for the work carried out by Robert.

551
The debate comes at an opportune time and I hope that it will help to meet the great need to involve more parliamentarians in the scrutiny process and/or educate right hon. and hon. Members on how best they can contribute to and involve themselves in that process.
Democracy and transparency will be the two key themes of the 1996 IGC. How do we make the European Union more responsive to its citizens and how do we make it more understandable and accessible? The Select Committee's report, which is before the House today, shows just how bad things are. Part IV reveals a litany of failure. For example, it shows how European legislation appears to be made in a private club and how the Council is prepared to discuss laws on the basis of an unofficial text, which would be unthinkable in our national Parliaments. It shows how translation and transmission delays often mean that proposals arrive in national Parliaments after laws have been approved. It shows how, time and again, the Commission fails to meet deadlines for the production of proposals and how proper discussion in member states is prevented. It shows how important matters appear on the agenda of the Council of Ministers at the last moment. It shows how documents travel not by e-mail but by snail mail, because there is no proper electronic transfer system that links the European institutions and all the national Governments and Parliaments. On a day when a probe from the earth has reached Jupiter, surely that is not too much to ask.
What about the jargon and the Euro-speak? I think of them as the dry rot of the European Union, because they can ruin any idea, no matter how good, and any proposal, no matter how sound. As we say in our report:
"If the Union is to move closer to the citizen, then it must speak in a language that the citizen recognises as his or her own."
Our report is uncompromising on all those issues because we do not believe that there is room for compromise where the interests of the people of this country are so fundamentally affected. I am delighted to say that our views have been widely endorsed. We sent our report to every Parliament, to every European Affairs Committee and to every Foreign Minister in the Union. Last month, at a meeting of all the European Affairs Committees in Madrid, there was widespread support for both our criticisms and our proposals.
I want to pick up on a key recommendation. We see national Parliaments as a focus for democratic legitimacy in the Union. Without their full involvement and consultation, the Union would lose its way. We suggest that there should be a minimum period of four weeks between any proposal with legislative implications arriving in every national Parliament—in the correct language and in an official text—and that proposal being considered by the Council. Let us try to bring some sanity and order to the way that Europe does its business.
It may surprise the Minister, but I want to compliment the Government. The Minister took our four-week proposal to the reflections group; he argued for it and the group endorsed it. It is clear from my conversations with Carlos Westendorp, the able chairman of the group, and from the group's final report, that the importance of orderly decision making, proper information and the role of national Parliaments are well understood by the group. I hope that they will also be well understood by the IGC.
The Minister may think that Christmas has come three weeks early, but I want to say two other nice things about the Government. First, I thank them for arranging this
552
debate today. It will not, of course, clear the five documents that we have recommended for debate, because this is only an Adjournment debate. However, there will be a further debate in European Standing Committee B after Christmas. That will also be a good opportunity to consider the outcome of the Madrid European Council.
Secondly, I thank the Minister for the Government's constructive reply to our report. It shows a real appreciation of the problems and, I hope, a real willingness to tackle them. The Government have asked for further views from my Committee on a number of aspects and we hope to respond soon.
However, I must sound a warning. The problems are not to be solved by rhetoric. When the Maastricht treaty was being negotiated, somebody must have said—it was probably in the middle of the night—"Hang on a minute, what about national Parliaments? Will not they feel left out?" So the national Governments stuck on to the Maastricht treaty a declaration on the role of national Parliaments. It sounds wonderful. It states:
"The Governments of the Member States will ensure that National Parliaments receive Commission proposals for legislation in good time for information or possible examination."
In fact, as our report shows, that turned out to be a sham. The declaration is routinely ignored by the very Governments who agreed it so solemnly. High-flown commitments, intentions and undertakings will no longer do. Better ways of doing business must be legally enforceable and must give national Parliaments their full and proper role.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I end with a short advertisement for the Committee that I have the honour to chair. Some hon. Members are critical of our European scrutiny system, although I suspect that most of them do not read the reports that they criticise. I am not sure that many of them attend the Standing Committees; certainly, not many of them have attended tonight's debate.
The House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation examines well over 1,000 documents a year. It assesses their legal and political importance, their financial implications, their likely effects on British interests, how well they are drafted, whether they are consistent with other Union policies, and so on. We are in constant dialogue with Government Departments to get the information that we need and we try to ensure that the Departments observe their obligations to this House. We co-operate closely with our sister Committee in the other place. We produce a report virtually every week that the House sits and we report substantively on more than 400 documents each year. Those reports are key sources of information for both hon. Members and their constituents. I hope that that will be the case with our IGC report and its extensive glossary.
We recommend 70 or 80 documents for debate every year, but it often appears that the excellent system of European Standing Committees, in which Ministers can be questioned for an hour on their policy on a particular European proposal and then have that policy debated, is greatly underused. Some hon. Members might not realise that any hon. Member can attend and speak in any European Standing Committee. We often say that our parliamentary opportunities are limited, but I have just referred to one that is definitely underused.

553
My Committee is continuing with the next stage of our work that relates to the IGC. We will be looking at the effectiveness of the European scrutiny system in the House and determining what improvements can be made. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel free to tell us their ideas.
I have some bad news for the Minister, but as he has had three compliments already he has not done too badly out of the deal. One of the areas on which my Committee will be focusing is the performance of Departments, which has been steadily declining over the past couple of years. Indeed, in some Departments the performance is nothing short of lamentable. I know that we will have the full support of Ministers, as well as the House, in that aspect of our work.
The matters that I have discussed this evening are not glamorous; some may think them unimportant. However, unless the Union works in an orderly, professional way, involving its citizens and their representatives in national Parliaments, the grander ideas for the future of Europe will come to nothing. In our report, we said that there seemed to be three in-trays in Europe: one labelled "difficult"; the second labelled "too difficult"; and the third labelled "exciting and visionary". The problem is that only the third in-tray is ever emptied. We must be prepared for the hard work of dealing with the first two in-trays as well.
7.9 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), not only for his speech this evening but for his work, the work of his Committee and the work of those he has enumerated who support it. We are also grateful for the impact that the Committee has already made, not only in the House but in the European Union as a whole, including the reflection group, on which we are represented by my hon. Friend the Minister.
Clearly, virtually everyone—indeed, those who take any interest in the European Union are almost unanimous on it—agrees on the need to take the operation of the Union closer to the people and to make it better understood. Obviously, the much enhanced and improved role of national Parliaments will be vital in that process. Therefore, the Committee's recommendations are obviously of great importance.
I should like to make a plea at this stage in our venture into the European Union to—almost—start again. We have gone through two or three very difficult years, not only, without doubt, in the Conservative party but in the nation as a whole. There is a frenzy and a froth related to European issues which is extremely unhelpful and, indeed, unhealthy. I offer three little words as our criteria for approaching the next stage of development of the European Union. They are: clarity, calmness and honesty—qualities that have been singularly poorly adhered to over the past year or two.
In particular, of course, we have had problems in our own ranks. One of the reasons is that we have been playing games with the media and the media have been playing games with us. Sadly, the words "calmness", "clarity" and "honesty" do not spring to mind when one
554
thinks of the British media in their present state or of the European Union. I very much hope that all of us who genuinely want to develop a really constructive relationship with our European partners will stop playing games with the media. Of course, the media like playing games with us because that sells papers, it is much more fun and it makes a good story out of something that is otherwise workmanlike and mundane.
One of the problems with the media lies, of course, in ownership. It is often said, when talking about the European Union, that there is a group of foreigners who are working extremely hard to damage British interests. That may be true, but the people about whom we ought to be talking are not Belgians in Brussels, or Germans or French; I happen to think that we ought to be talking about an Australian—who took United States nationality for commercial reasons—a Canadian, and a gentlemen who is a dual citizen of Britain and France and a Member of the European Parliament for a French constituency.
Those gentleman have very strong views on Britain and Europe; they are hostile to Britain's constructive relationship with the EU. Because of their power and the influence that they wield, they are able to do great damage. All of us who want to ensure that we develop a fruitful relationship—we may have our differences on how we get there—should be extremely careful not to give those gentlemen, shall we say, the weapons with which they can go about their own affairs.
These gentlemen constantly drip, drip, drip vitriol and disinformation into the British people. The harm caused is obvious to us all and we should do everything that we can to stop it. If we could—I agree that it is an optimistic objective—introduce some clarity, calmness and honesty in the media, and our dealings with them, that would certainly be an immense step forward.
We should apply the same principles to our European partners too. We should not lacerate ourselves, and either think that we are always right, as some of us tend to do, or think that we are always in the wrong, and that those on the other side of the net always get it right. Certainly, mistakes are continuing to be made among our partners, although many of the mistakes of what I would call the Maastricht frenzy were quickly recognised. Many continental European politicians were the first to say that such mistakes must be avoided and—as I said—that we must get closer to the people.
We must look very carefully at any initiative that exists. Of course the one at the forefront of all our minds at the moment is the single currency. Above all, with an issue of that nature, nothing is more needed than a good deal of calmness and a great deal of clarity and honesty. I certainly believe that the prima facie case for a single currency is extremely strong. We need not elaborate on that in this debate. Of course there are downsides to it, but my instincts are that it makes a great deal of sense and has many advantages.
I also believe—here I certainly agree with the line taken by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench—that the difficulties inherent in this grand project have not fully and honestly been faced by any of us or by its protagonists in other countries.
There has been much talk about the convergence criteria. I believe that they are essential. The sort of thing advanced by the Labour party is unrealistic. The criteria of Maastricht—inflation, interest rates, budget deficit and

555
public debt—are good and necessary. I say to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), with whom I regularly joust in these debates, that yes, we could argue about the pace of restructuring that is now applied in France, but that does not negate the desirability of those criteria, which any self-respecting, good-housekeeping Conservative considers entirely right. If one were an unreconstructed Keynesian, I could well imagine that those criteria would not seem desirable, but there are not many unreconstructed Keynesians left—although I think that at least three of them are in the Chamber this evening.
France's problems lie in the legacy of 14 years of socialist presidencies, not with the fact that it is trying to get its house in order now. Perhaps the problems are mainly caused by the pace at which it is trying to do that and the style that it is adopting. I submit, to anyone who has any doubts, that we as Conservatives should not be in the least hostile to those criteria because, regardless of a single currency proposal, we should aim to meet the targets that they represent. I am happy to say that, given the way in which the economy is developing, there is every reason to expect that, in the next year or two, we shall indeed meet those criteria.
On the single currency and my themes of clarity, calmness and honesty, an issue that has not been addressed, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regularly seeks to put on the agenda, is the relationship—as, when and if a single currency group is created—between the first tier and the second tier, between the inner core and the outer core. Clearly, there are many problems—competitive devaluation, different standards of living and, possibly, the reintroduction of tariffs. What do those problems mean for the single market? There are many serious questions to be answered and they should be looked at positively. I believe instinctively that a single currency is the right way forward, but that is not to say that we should sweep those questions under the carpet and ignore them.
When we talk about British interests, which we must always do in this connection, we should never forget the challenges, to put it mildly—the threats to Britain—of a core single currency bloc with Britain left outside. What Britain needs is what every economy needs, but our position is slightly different because we depend on international trade and its impact on the City. What we need above all is stability and low interest rates. Those two targets would be achieved within the single currency and it would be quite impossible to achieve them outside.
When we approach the matter, let us cut out the emotion. Yes, we must look at the sovereignty issue, but we should all recognise that any British Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he stands at the Dispatch Box to deliver his Budget, is not sovereign in any sense; he cannot ignore what is going on in the rest of the world, the balance of trade, interest rates and currency movements. We must use the wonderful word "sovereignty" with the greatest care and the greatest honesty so that we do not send up a great flame of emotion about the concept of sovereignty when we look at issues and interests that are vital to our nation.
I have a suggestion for a number of those who seem to take pride in the title "Euro-sceptic". I have always thought of it as a negative label. One wonders what they are sceptical about. I should like them to approach the issues again, with the criteria of clarity, calmness and honesty. I have always asked those of the sceptic
556
persuasion, from whichever side of the political divide they come, the same question. We know what they are against and we know what they do not believe in. Over the years, we have heard many times what they are against and what they do not believe in. What we really need to know is what they do believe in and what they do support. Do they, for example, believe that this country can hold its own with the continental economies? Do they believe that we need to live in a country in which our national unit of currency is constantly devalued? I do not believe that.
I believe that we can look the Germans and the other economies in the face. We do not need to rely on constant and competitive devaluations. Do the Euro-sceptics believe that? That is the kernel of it. I believe that there are many areas of national activity—not only the economy but security, the environment and many other issues—where Britain's best interests are served by constructive collaboration with our European partners. Do the Euro-sceptics believe that? If not, what do they suggest instead?
I believe that the United Kingdom's political powers and interests are better served by working in conjunction with our European partners. That seems so obvious that it is hardly worth debating. One gets the impression—a false impression with some—that the constant negative carping means that we lose sight of the crucial positive. I say to Ministers that we need more from them. We need more emphasis on the benefits that Britain obtains from membership of the European Union and on the benefits that we can obtain in future.
I know the problems that Ministers have. When I raise the point with them, they say, "Our speeches are balanced. We have a nice paragraph or two about how we want to be in Europe and about how we are getting benefits. We then go into the corrective bits, because who would argue that there are not things to be corrected in Europe? However, the media only pick up the carping, the negative bits and the nagging at the European Union." That may well be the case, but it is all the more reason for Ministers to redouble their efforts to remind people that mcmbership of the European Union is of fundamental importance to our country. Such a reminder is needed now because of the intense and negative campaign to which our constituents have been subjected for three or four years.
People have genuinely forgotten the huge achievements of peace, security, international co-operation and economic co-operation, and the potential of this huge market. They have forgotten that in all the rigmarole about lollipop ladies who have to carry signs in German and maps of Britain which have "Mercia" written on them—all that nonsense. There is a task for Ministers. It is a task we all share as Back Benchers, but people need to hear about the positive aspects from the Government. I quote a leading spokesman, of whom our party is very proud, who stated 20 years ago:
"We are inextricably a part of Europe … Europe is where we are and where we have always been."
Those are the words of the now Baroness Thatcher on 16 April 1975. Those words were right then and they are right now.
7.26 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It was good to have the routine, ritual recitation of regular clichés by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)—the debate

557
would not have been the same without them. There is a routine in these debates: the Euro-sceptics versus the old septics in the hon. Gentleman's case.
Although these debates have always been an exchange of stereotypes, I sense that they are becoming more serious, more realistic and more accurate—all accusations from which I exempt the hon. Gentleman. He is still crazy after all these years—a Foreign Office clock stopped in 1972. Indeed, he is the best manifestation I know of the lemming mentality. If people in Brussels jump over a cliff, we must follow them because we cannot be left behind. It would be uncommunautaire not to jump over any available cliff Europe jumps over.
The hon. Member for Wycombe told us about the benefits of membership before we went into Europe and it turned out to be a disaster. He told us about the joys of the exchange rate mechanism before we went in and it turned out to be a disaster. He now praises monetary union in the same terms. We view his arguments in the same light as we do the consequences of his other arguments.
I am afraid that what the hon. Gentleman talks about—the Labour party talks about this too in a sense—is a mystical Europe, a Europe of dreams and a Europe that does not exist. We are talking about Europe as we would like it to be, not about the club to which we belong, which is basically a coalition between France and Germany to force their interests on the Community and to bribe a peripheral Club Med of smaller states to go along with what they want. It is a hard commercial relationship and the consequences of our lack of success in that hard commercial relationship are now coming through to the British electorate.
What the hon. Member for Wycombe called the frenzy, the froth and the negativity is the process of discovery of the pain and consequences of membership. It is still all disguised by the usual litany of lies. Membership of the European Community has polluted politics in this country. Failure must be portrayed as success and the advocates of going in will never admit that they are wrong, so they must say that we are doing well although we are manifestly not.
I have a point for the hon. Member for Wycombe and the Euro-enthusiasts who still survive in this country. I see that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) is with us, so some Euro-enthusiasts still survive; she is perfectly preserved, I might add. They should tell us the truth.
As I see it, the consequences of membership have been disastrous for this country. The White Paper told us that there would be no benefit from membership unless the growth rate increased substantially, yet it actually fell with our membership. Unemployment has quadrupled, and imports' share of our market has trebled since we joined. We have therefore got ourselves into a trade deficit in visible trade, and also a massive public deficit, because we have shrunk the tax base and destroyed more of our industrial base than any of our competitors.
What caused all that? Was it due to the far-sighted efforts of a Conservative Government who have been in power for 16 years, or was it due to the consequences of our membership of that malign Community, so weighted against us? Conservative Euro-enthusiasts should tell us
558
which one did the damage. Why are we in this mess? Was it their Government, or was it their enthusiasm for Europe, that gave us all those benefits?
Economically, we have had our worst years since we entered that relationship, and now the politics of hypocrisy are emerging. The reality is that both parties are split. It is a foolish game for either major party to pretend that it is united on the issue. It is also foolish to trade the insults and stereotypes that we have heard today.
Both parties will stand up for Britain and will do their best in the negotiations, but both will be overruled, because to stay in and to belong they will have to go along with whatever folly is demanded, whether that be the Maastricht treaty or whatever emerges from the intergovernmental conference. We are always told, "Move along, or be left behind." Although both parties would stand up for Britain if they were in power, in fact they are always dragged along behind, and simply because people try to disguise that we are left talking about a Europe that is not real. It is like talking about a cloud of gas.
It is interesting to see how attitudes to Europe have changed. In the 1970s we were told that membership of the European Community—or the Common Market, as it then was—was a great bulwark against Bennery. Apparently the treaty of Rome, a capitalist treaty, would stop the forces of socialism in this country. But now we are told that that same Community really represents socialism creeping across the channel from Brussels. What was a bulwark against Benn has become a tide of socialism dragging this country down.
Both sides are confused, so the politics of hypocrisy are emerging on both sides of the political divide—and they are at their worst when people talk about monetary union. Europe has gone down the path of monetary union because that was the only way to build union. The politicians cannot get the democratic consent of electorates, because electorates will not vote for union, and they cannot get agreement between Governments because in the process of deal-making and discussions inside Europe Governments tend to construct a camel. They therefore decided to go down the monetary road.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead avows as much in his autobiography—or his "alibiography", as it might be called. In 1979 Europe began to go down that road because it was the only road open. The logic is quite clearly that if we have a single currency we shall need the institutions to manage it, and the huge redistribution system that will be necessary to remove the consequences—that is, the damage that monetary union will do to the backward regions and the weaker economies.
The redistribution system will have to be monstrous and enormous. In a nation state one can move money around. If Scotland or the north is not doing too well, we can have a regional policy, unemployment benefit and public spending on roads and other infrastructure in the area. But Europe cannot do that. Europe is not a nation state and it controls only about 1 per cent. of Europe's GDP. If we had a single currency we would need the machinery to redistribute money on an enormous scale to offset the disastrous consequences of monetary union for the poorer areas.
That bill would have to be paid, as the bill had to be paid to merge the currencies of East and West Germany. The Germans were prepared to pay that bill, for kith and

559
kin, but there is no set of institutions or relationships that would pay the bill after monetary union. That is the unspoken bill that will come to us at the end of the whole process, but everyone keeps quiet about it.
Mr. Spearing: I was given to understand that one of the reasons why West Germany was keen on the union of the then single market was that that would enable it to provide support for its southern areas at the expense of the north. Does my hon. Friend agree that where there is more competition, which is supposed to be one of the benefits of a single market, the better-off areas get even richer and the worse-off areas get even poorer? That involves not simply the recirculation that my hon. Friend mentioned, but a centralised financial and political power to collect the money and redistribute it.
Mr. Mitchell: That is a consequence of a single market, too, but it would be compounded by a single currency. In a single market a country can at least cushion itself and take shocks on the exchange rate rather than putting people out of work. That cannot be done with a single currency, so the machinery and scale of redistribution will have to be much bigger.
With all those disadvantages, there is only one consolation about monetary union: the simple fact that it will not work. It will rip the weaker economies apart. That realisation is growing—but not, as other hon. Members have pointed out, among the elite of Europe. There is a deep gulf between the people of Europe, who feel apprehensive, worried and anxious, and are being hit by the consequences of the move to a single currency, and the elite. That is happening in France, in particular, but it is happening in Italy and Belgium too. The people are being hit by rising unemployment and cuts in public spending, but the elite maintains its enthusiasm undiminished, because it is immune from the consequences. The elite is losing touch with reality.
The result is that Governments approach the issues backwards. Look at Italy. It did well out of leaving the exchange rate mechanism, because its exchange rate came down. The Italians also wisely decided to send many politicians to prison, which destroyed confidence in the currency, and the lira fell even further. Italian manufactured exports then became enormously competitive, and a deficit in trade has been turned into a surplus within two years.
Italy is now trying to bring the exchange rate back up, because the Prime Minister is a former reserve banker and the Italian Government are desperate to get into monetary union—all unaware of the fact that the terms of convergence for monetary union were deliberately written by the Germans so as to exclude Italy. Italy is almost the last nation that the Germans want to let in, yet Italy is now trying to submit itself to targets and to hurdles that were deliberately built high to prevent it from jumping them.
The Labour party says that monetary union might be a good thing, but that we must change the terms of convergence so that there is real convergence— in fact, we must rewrite the treaty. That, too, is a Europe of dreams, a Europe that does not exist. Those terms will not be changed. The harsh convergence criteria were put in deliberately because they were the minimum acceptable to the Bundesbank. They will not be changed, because the Bundesbank and Germany do not want them changed, and the German politicians will not be able to change them.
560
It is no use the Swedes talking about a full employment policy, or our talking about real convergence; it is no use trying to pursue escapist dreams in that fashion. The terms will not be changed, and we are simply indulging in wishful thinking if we think that they will be.
France gives us another example of a country walking backwards. President Chirac was elected on a platform whose main plank was the fight against unemployment. Yet he has now turned that into a fight against his own people. He has declared war on the social security system, on the trade unions and on the people of France. Probably in the end he will win. There is no doubt that elites are powerful in France. France has a strong executive Government and it can win through.
For the French elite, the desire to maintain the franc fort, which it sees as the key to France's relationship with Germany, is crucial. There has been such an investment in pain and misery there over the years, with such low growth and such high unemployment, that the elite will not suddenly admit that it was all a terrible mistake and say to the electorate, "Sorry, we have been pursuing the impossible for eight or 10 years. It was a mistake, so let's begin all over again."
Germany is in the process of walking backwards as its politicians discover that its people do not want monetary union because they do not want give up the deutschmark, and the Bundesbank does not want monetary union because it does not want to give up control of German economic policy. German politicians are now pressing for tougher conditions in an attempt to propitiate the German people and the Bundesbank.
All this walking backwards means that monetary union will not happen. Look what happened to Commissioner Kinnock, who said that the king had no clothes. Retribution descended on his innocent head after his innocuous statement on something that should have been obvious to everybody.
My point is not that monetary union will not happen—it may happen. The elite in France will want to stick to Germany, and a group of "deutschmark states" may form with France around Germany. But that is the only way in which monetary union will happen. If it is pursued as a policy for Europe without a test of how much the elite of Europe is prepared to listen to the people, it will be disastrous. I do not know whether monetary union will happen—it may, or it may not—but it will he disastrous if it does and our future will lie on the outside, pursuing our own interests.
Whether monetary union happens or not, enormous efforts will be put into trying to make it happen. We will have to go through the preliminary stages, which are causing the problem, to the point where everybody will finally accept that it cannot happen. The domesday machine is now out of control and is grinding down the people of Europe. The preliminaries to monetary union are causing unemployment and leading to cuts in Government spending, which are leading to low growth. Europe, which was supposed to be the train to take us to growth, is dragging us back. Thanks to Europe's ruinous economic policies, it is worse off than we are.
Europe is not working. Monetary union cannot work, yet it is being pursued through all its stages, which will inflict pain. What is happening in monetary union is also happening in every other sphere of European activity, including enlargement. Our Government are attached to the

561
idea of enlargement, whereas the German Government want it for rather less altruistic reasons, but nothing is happening. The best way to help the emerging democracies in eastern Europe is to help their agriculture. We cannot do so, however, because of the enormous effect that that would have on the common agricultural policy.
Such selfishness precludes us not only from helping those countries in the most effective way, but from giving them full membership of the Union. That would have to involve membership of the common agricultural policy, which would almost certainly double the burdens of the CAP. That would bring the CAP crashing to the ground, but it has not materialised so far.
The measures will be a barrier against the eastern European states joining the EU. They will not be able to join the CAP, nor will they be able to join the common fisheries policy. Some of the countries concerned—Poland, Bulgaria, Latvia and Estonia—have big fishing fleets. Where will they fish? They will not have waters, and we cannot compensate them as we did the Spanish in our waters. We cannot therefore enthusiastically welcome those countries on that basis.
We cannot subsidise the eastern European countries on the scale that we subsidise Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, as those countries might object to our doing so. No progress has been made on enlargement. However many platitudes we preach and however desirable we say that enlargement is, it is being put in limbo, and nothing will happen.
Nothing can be decided on the institutional changes either, because the European Parliament is in a power struggle with the Commission, the Commission is in a power struggle with the Council of Ministers, France and Germany are in a power struggle with the other countries and the elite is in a power struggle with the people. This is not building an exciting and idealistic venture—it is wrestling in blancmange. It is a living tableau by Damien Hirst of a wrestling match smothered in blancmange. That is what we are being asked by hon, Members such as the hon. Member for Wycombe to give our allegiance to.
I am not sure how the IGC will work out. For a start, what is it? Is it a 3,000-mile service for a car from hell that is shorter on one side than the other? Is it a fundamental reconstruction of the Union? Nobody seems to know—nobody has any idea. It will be very difficult, if not impossible. to get any agreement. France and Germany cannot let the conference fail and they cannot allow monetary union to be postponed. President Chirac cannot say after all the current events in France that monetary union should be postponed, and so the consequences will be pursued.
I will conclude on this point. The IGC will be a messy, but it will be no use the countries involved postponing any outcome or decisions while they wait for a Labour Government in this country. The advent of a Labour Government has been postponed. We will win power, but it is clear that there must be another Budget next November. We shall not win power until April 1997 as the election will be put back to that date.
It is no use those countries thinking that they can postpone the outcome of the IGC in a typical European fashion until there is a Labour Government who will be a
562
soft touch. We will not be a soft touch when it comes to the negotiations, as that is in the interests of the British people and the interests of the Labour party.
It is essential that we pursue our job in government, which is to conquer unemployment, rebuild the industrial base of this country, generate economic growth and maximise the living standards of our people. We cannot accept anything—monetary union, cuts in Government spending, restrictions on growth, insistence that we should cut the public sector deficit—which gets in the way of the job that the Labour Government will be taking on in April 1997.
7.46 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson: In following the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I cannot help but notice the irony. Here we are debating Europe, with all the arguments about Euro-scepticism, but where are the sceptics now? Every Opposition Back-Bencher in the Chamber is a Euro-sceptic, whereas all my hon. Friends who are present have a more positive view of the EC. We are told time and again that the Labour party is united on Europe, but we must realise that it is not and that Labour has its differences just as differences are expressed by Conservative Members.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) stressed the need for Britain to be at the heart of Europe, which, I am glad to say, is where we are and where the Prime Minister wishes us to remain. In my view, what matters more than anything is that the European Union is developed in a way that is not just pragmatic and realistic but is broadly capable of carrying the peoples of Europe with it. That means the acceptance of Community institutions to standards of democratic accountability, with the European Parliament effectively carrying out its role as the Union's scrutineer, given that there is a difference in the relationships between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers and between the British Government and this House—or indeed between any member state and its Parliament.
As part of that realism, we must reflect on how the Union almost came unstuck over the Maastricht treaty, which encompassed much ambition combined with what many people would have said was gobbledegook. Many members of the public across Europe found the treaty hard to understand. That is why I was glad to see some opening words of refreshing realism in the reflection group report, issued on 5 December which said:
"And yet, for a growing number of Europeans, the rationale for Community integration is not self-evident".
The report goes on to say certain things which all of us can accept. It says that the Union is not and does not want to be a super-state, and adds that the IGC must make the Union more relevant to its citizens. It also states:
"The conference must also make the Union more transparent and closer to the citizens."
It could be argued that such hesitancy is reflected throughout the report, in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), has played an important part. The report is punctuated by phrases such as, "Many of us think that", "Some of us also felt", "One of us"—I cannot think who—believes". I shall leave it to the House to decide who that might have been and

563
to reflect on the uncertainty that seems to be permeating member states. That is very different from the conditions that existed in the run-up to the Maastricht treaty.
It is clear that the number of doubters out in the country has grown-often because of their worries about smaller aspects such as excessive bureaucracy and the absurdity of what has become known as the daft directives, with which we used to be plagued. There is also a feeling that the competency and tentacles of the Union stretch too far in an over-zealous bid for excessive regulation.
Many of those charges are often unfair, but the mud sticks. The most common sentiment expressed to me by doubters—rather than sceptics—in my constituency is that the Union should be about free trade, not a relentless search for a federal super-state. The reflection group report seems to have started to share that view. My response is that Britain has been the driving force behind the creation of the single market and we must not lose sight of the outstanding work that still remains to be done.
Equally important is the development of the concept of subsidiarity, which involves ensuring that decisions should be taken where they are most suited. The problem is that the lines have often become blurred because, for years, member states preferred to agree on matters that they did not think were so important and on which they could agree most easily. As a result, we have taken the Community further in some sectors than we would wish. The argument about the development of subsidiarity is an attempt to ensure that competencies are placed where they can best be dealt with.
Democracy is precious to all member states, but especially to the aspirant states in eastern Europe, which have had so little time to enjoy their new-found freedoms. That is why I was delighted to hear strong support from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary this afternoon for the process of enlargement.
I visited Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia recently and it was impossible not to be struck by the strong commitment to membership. As the realisation sinks in that the fruits of democracy, particularly in the context of economic growth, are hard to come by, it is no longer a bar to office in those countries to have been associated with earlier regimes. Yet the new president of Poland, whatever his past, is firmly committed to membership of the European Union and of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. That ambition is not remote, but focuses on the immediate years following the turn of the millennium.
I was therefore glad to hear the recognition that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the reform of the common agricultural policy, which is fundamental. I was disappointed, however, not to see any mention of it in the chapter entitled "Enabling the Union to work better and preparing it for enlargement" in the reflection group's report. I can find no reference to reform of the CAP in the document.
Mr. David Davis: The subject was discussed at some length in the reflection group but as the group was aiming solely at the intergovernmental conference, which deals with institutional matters rather than policy matters, it was not given the priority that would normally be expected. That was simply an organisational matter, but nobody considered the subject unimportant.
Mr. Robinson: I am grateful and encouraged by my hon. Friend's explanation. As I studied the report, I could
564
not help feeling that there was a danger that southern member states might have an interest in ensuring that discussion of the reform of the CAP was left out of the process. I am glad to hear that the subject remains on the agenda. If it were not, I fear that aspirations for further enlargement would be difficult to achieve. There is a strong feeling in this country that the CAP needs to be reformed and revised, and needs to work better for the Community's producers, of which our farmers remain among the best and most competitive in Europe. They should be allowed to have the freedom to exercise that competitiveness.
I sense that Europe is not in the mood for an outcome to the IGC that makes radical changes in the Union and its sister organisations such as the Western European Union. We need consolidation and considered improvement in the development of the single market and in the fight against drugs, terrorism and cross-border crime. We need the sensible development of arrangements that will build on the progress that has been made over the years in the development of a common foreign policy. We also need to strengthen our capacity in European security and defence policies. I was glad that the reflection group paper emphasised the need to strengthen further relations between the European Union and WEU—discussion should remain there at present.
We can be sure that a Conservative Government will always be prepared to exercise their right to disagree, even if they do so alone. The long-term health of the European Union has already been strengthened by some characteristics that have flowed from constructive belligerence. If we apply that in 1996 we shall have a better chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome to the IGC—and a much better chance than the one offered by the Labour party were it to follow the policy of the Leader of the Opposition and insist on never being seen to stand alone.
That policy has been slightly blown apart this afternoon because, in his opening speech, the shadow Foreign Secretary made it clear that he was prepared to see Labour stand alone on some issues. It remains to be seen whether his line was cleared in advance with the Leader of the Opposition. One of the Labour party's typically nice—sounding policy phrases—"We will never stand alone"—has this afternoon been smashed on the rocks.
Much emphasis is placed on the importance of qualified majority voting, particularly by smaller states. We have managed to come a long way without the use of QMV and any change in the voting system will have to be significant and fundamental. The change must cover not simply the way in which votes are cast, but the weight of individual member states, particularly in terms of their economic contribution to the Community. If we are to encourage into the Community—as I believe we should—some of the very small states such as Malta and, I hope, Cyprus, we will clearly have to find a more rational structure for our decision making.
Changes to the system of qualified majority voting should be undertaken only in the context of significant structural change. If we achieve such change, then, and only then, can we consider the competencies to which QMV should be applied. I would add only that there will always be room for a veto in certain areas of Community policy, where vital issues of strategic importance are involved. If such arrangements are not made, the danger is that the Union will start to unravel.

565
We all want to avoid the work of the past 50 years coming to grief because of an over-zealous approach to the decision-making process and to the institutions of the Community. The Community has always done best when it has moved forward on the basis of rational consensus.
Some would say that we made great strides during the years leading up to the Maastricht treaty and beyond, but perhaps now is the time for a little more measured reflection. Now is the time to see where we can go with the enlargement process and to bring in the countries of eastern Europe that so keenly want to join. They will be good for the Community; they have had to fight for their democracy, and they will not give up their freedoms lightly. They will bring with them an element of common sense of the same sort as the other new members have brought to Community discussions in the past 12 months.
There is much to play for at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. Britain must be at the heart of the negotiations. It must be the voice of reason and common sense. If we succeed in that, we shall be able once again to help the Community to develop in a way that its peoples will understand and accept: that is the key. If we do not carry the peoples of Europe with us while developing the Community, the long-term viability of its institutions will ultimately be threatened.
8.1 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I echo wholeheartedly the closing sentiments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson). He traced a fairly objective picture of what is going on at the Moment; but I suggest to him that developments in the European Union are not the real problem that we face.
Everyone asks what sort of Europe we want—I do not, but others do. That suggests that we can start afresh, but I fear that it is impossible. We can only build on the combined treaties; we can develop only as far as they permit. We are not building the edifice from scratch. The foundations are already in place, and they limit the actions that we can take. To that extent I dissent from the hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. Things are not as he described them, much as people who want to avoid the issues pretend they are.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to have some faith in the idea of subsidiarity, a somewhat mystical concept. As I told the Minister in the course of a Select Committee investigation chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—he has already produced an excellent summary of the report—subsidiarity does not apply to anything over which the Community has exclusive jurisdiction. That represents an enormous area, including the single market. Huge amounts of legislation deal with the single market under article 100A and the definitions of an area without internal frontiers. Subsidiarity therefore does not operate over most of the treaty's provisions.
In so far as subsidiarity is claimed to be able to operate, to use a phrase I have used before, it is to be tested by a comparison of probabilities, estimates and complex predictions, in a context of unknown future conditions. It cannot, of course, be justiciable. It is impossible to judge
566
the future; courts can judge only on the present and the past. Here, however, we are dealing with a matter of complex prediction and political judgment.
I maintain that subsidiarity, despite all the conferences held about it, is not the viable protection it is often claimed to he. That, too, adds to the general air of disillusionment. As a member of the relevant Committee I am privileged to possess a copy of the report by the reflection group. I would sum it up as saying that things are not working, that the Union does not have the confidence of the people of Europe, and that something must be done about that: more centralisation. Perhaps the Minister will put me right if I have misinterpreted the report, but it seems to suggest more centralisation on top of what the Maastricht treaty, which is still in the early stages of development, provides.
These events seem to creep up on us and surprise us all, as I have said in this House for 15 years. We sign treaties, only to find two or three years later that events have moved on. A good example of that came in the past 10 days, headlined in all the newspapers and the subject of a spat on the "Today" programme. It had to do with something that the Home Secretary had prevented from happening at a meeting of the Home Affairs Council. Apparently he did not agree to an otherwise unanimous decision on a certain statement about racism and xenophobia.
Even I, who try to follow these things, learned only after further investigation what it was all about. We had not seen the relevant document in the Scrutiny Committee, set up by this House to look into such matters. It appears that the document had been drafted by the Commission under the home affairs and justice pillar. It may have been thought that that was an intergovernmental subject over which the Commission has no jurisdiction. But the treaty says that the Commission can produce proposals on six topics: asylum policy, rules governing the crossing by persons of the external borders of the member states, immigration policy—with three sub-divisions—combating drug addiction, combating fraud on an international scale, judicial co-operation in civil matters. Under article K.3.2, action may be taken under qualified majority voting at the instigation of the Commission.
As some of us have pointed out before in late-night debates, this is yet another example of how even politicians can be taken by surprise. And the problem is that most official documents to do with the EC mean hardly anything to the general population. That is why the media do not report them much—they are meaningless and hence not useful for news purposes, however important they may be in law.
After reading the report of the reflection group I went down my local high street and looked at the faces of the electorate. I doubt whether more than two or three lines in the report would be comprehensible to the average citizen, even the well-informed citizen. That is the communication gap on which the reflection group has quite properly remarked. But if the conference called to review certain aspects of the treaty goes in for more complications and centralisation. or for embroideririńg still further the powers of the centralised institutions, serious disillusion will set in.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome wondered why so many countries on the eastern border of the present Union want to become members. I suspect that it

567
is not because they know everything about the treaties. I will mention later the problems in relation to our Scandinavian friends, who recently became members. First, I will add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale about scrutiny in this place.
The Select Committee's report, which my hon. Friend summarised well, shows how far we have to go. The document that the Home Secretary was dealing with not long ago did not come before the Select Committee on European Legislation, even though legislation might flow from it. It can certainly do so under article K.3.2. The document might have gone to the Home Affairs Select Committee, but I am fairly sure that that Committee did not have an opportunity to tell the Home Secretary what it thought.
I do not often see eye to eye with the Home Secretary, and I may not do so even on this matter. However, are we saying that everything will depend on the swift, snap judgment of the Home Secretary of the day—whoever he may be and from whatever party, advised by a few civil servants in the course of a few hours, 10 days or a fortnight of notice being given of a particular statement at the Council of Ministers? Are we saying that that will be done in the case of important policing matters relating to the international movement of peoples? That is the current position.
There has been a great deal of improvement in our scrutiny procedures, particularly in respect of the pillars and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Today, we heard distinguished contributions from its Chairman and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). However, I do not think that they can get at the single European foreign policy, which is to be determined by 15 people—of whom our Foreign Secretary is one. I do not think that they could keep up. The distance between even Members of Parliament, let alone our 50,000 or 60,000 electors each, and the real decision-making that used to happen in this place is growing wider and wider. No wonder the general population, in whichever country of the European Union, is disillusioned.
Was there ever any confidence in the first place? The European Union's great boast is that it represents all that is best in western European democracy. One characteristic of democracy is not only the plethora of words ending "ity" in the reflection group report, but information and visibility. Where do we find that? Did we find it on entry? There may have been White Papers at the time of accession in 1971 and 1972, but it was claimed then by the Prime Ministers of two parties that no law could be passed and be directly applicable to this country if a British Minister said no. Strictly speaking, that was being over-economical with the truth. That was a reference to the so-called Luxembourg agreement, which was not in the treaty, has hardly been used since and is not really effective.
At the time of the one referendum held in this country, we were told that the risk of economic and monetary union had been removed by negotiation. Denmark held two referendums. The result of the first was roughly 50-50. The second, which just went the other way, was based on a few words after the Edinburgh summit that did not change a word of the treaty. Can we say that that is really democratic? The result of the referendum in France was virtually 50-50. Was that wholehearted consent, on the basis of what was known at the time—not as things turned out later?
568
Some members of the Select Committee on European Legislation had the opportunity to meet our friends from Sweden and Finland. The Finns are on the northern margins of the Union. A high proportion of that country's population live within the Arctic circle. The Finns told us time and time again that their overriding purpose in joining the European Union was security. Of course it was, given the instability further east. We would be in that position too. However, it is little known in this country that to meet the rigorous terms that were virtually imposed on the Finns by the European Union, Finland now has a Government that is more than a coalition. It comprises all parties from what would be the middle of the Conservative party in this country to the greens on the far left. The Finns can comply with the disciplines that the treaties will impose on them only by having a national Government of that sort. Some of us said at the beginning that the treaties were defective because they begin to destroy the normal operations of parties and Parliaments. I suggest that that has happened in Finland. Would it have such a Government otherwise?
The Finns are planning to reduce substantially support for agriculture. While it is true that a considerable sum will come from the European Union for a few years, special arrangements have been made to allow Finland to continue national aid because a large proportion of its population are in the northern areas. Even on the best estimates, there will still be a cut in incomes for the farming community, where unemployment is already high in Finland. Why are such coercive conditions placed on applicant members, who virtually have no choice? Is that democratic? Is that really power from the bottom up, which is what democracy is about?
Many years ago, Sweden was looked upon by people on the left of centre as the ideal nation of societies, because socialism is really about that. Today, Sweden is having to give up that which was regarded for many years as a remarkable if not ideal state on the world stage. Sweden managed to retain its political neutrality and to produce a unique relationship between capital and labour and production. Sweden played a distinguished independent role in world peace organisations. It was able to do so—as was Norway, in the middle east—by virtue of its independence. From the beginning, the Riksdag created a central bank—as a public service that was seen as a community organisation. In the past few years, because of some form of misjudgment, the banks created a lot of private credit, which I presume will not be stopped by the treaty of union. I suppose that one can stop public credit or borrowing being created but that private credit can go up to the sky. That does not seem to matter. It is just another little matter of the criteria.
We learnt from distinguished sources that the Swedish people were assured that joining the European Union did not mean that they were committed to economic and monetary union—that there would have to be a debate and a vote in the Riksdag if the nature of the currency were to be changed. I have been told—this is subject to further information—that when they took the first vote many people in Sweden thought that they were under no obligation to join any economic and monetary union. I put it no higher than that. They thought that they had an opt-out of the sort negotiated by the United Kingdom. If that is incorrect, I stand to be corrected. We have, however, been told that on good authority by Swedish people.

569
How can any organisation claiming to be fundamentally democratic insist on such condition for potential member states who wish to join? It is not surprising that since joining many things having emerged and the balance of consent in Sweden has moved from a small yes to a rather more substantial no. That bodes badly for intra-Community relations.
Austria has never featured prominently in newspaper headlines. It managed to keep its nose clean to both east and west. Indeed, it had to. It is a remarkable country with many remarkably ingenious people. Large areas of Austria are used for alpine agriculture while others contain innovative and skilful industry. I have been told that since joining the Community Austria's industry has been disrupted and that alpine farmers are in difficulties.
Why is that? Prices in Austria for food and other forms of agricultural production were much higher than comparable prices within the Community. That had to be if Austria was to continue to sustain the cost of agriculture in alpine pastures and the upland areas generally. Prices in Sweden, Norway and Finland are much higher than those on the world scale because those countries had to do the same thing.
There is now widespread discontent in Austria, especially in view of a long period of coalition government when conditions were not so difficult. That may encourage nationalist feelings in the forthcoming election, the results of which we shall know on 17 December. I fear sometimes that nationalist feelings are the motivation of some Conservative Members.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I who have always been doubtful about European treaties from the first, or have seen little or no merit in them, have adopted that approach because we do not believe that they are inherently international. They lead to erosion and cause doubts within national democratic structures. That may not have been obvious to some but it is becoming more and more obvious as we proceed.
The intergovernmental conference, if it moves further down the road of centrality and further away from people's representatives and begins to undermine or destroy the effective power of elected people, will further cause disillusion. If treaties do not allow policies to be adumbrated and agreed to by a Government in this place, or by national parliaments everywhere, the democratic choice of the people is automatically destroyed. That choice has been destroyed in this place. Let us hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that on-going centralisation will not be pursued. Let us hope also that we develop or change the Community's institutions in a way that reflects democracy and not, in my judgment, attacks it.
8.23 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) with some respect. I know that he is pro-European, not anti. As he said at the beginning of his remarks, he is stuck with the institutions that we have in Europe. That is his dislike.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that we last crossed swords in debate on 1 November at the English Speaking Union. I took on both the hon. Gentleman and the hon.
570
Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I beat them hands down. I had a 2:1 majority, even among the former colonials of the ESU. It is clear that the arguments of the hon. Member for Newham, South were listened to and rejected.
Many of those who speak against Europe and are hostile to some of the European institutions adopt a rather different attitude, which was probably inadvertently revealed by Mr. Bretherton of the Board of Trade back in 1955. As he was pulled out of the Messina talks by the then Conservative Government, he wrote to his French counterpart as follows:
"I leave Messina happy because even if you continue talking, you will not agree; even if you agree, nothing will result; even if something results, it will be a disaster."
Three years later the treaty of Rome was signed and the United Kingdom had excluded itself from the beginning of the first great European movement. I consider that to be the greatest mistake that the United Kingdom ever made. Had we been in at the start we could have had a far greater influence. We could have helped to form European institutions and many of the complaints that the United Kingdom has justifiably made since would not have been necessary.
That has been our attitude to many institutions. We refused to join the set-up called the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, which was established in 1980. We still talk as if our removal from it in 1992 smashed the whole operation. That is not true. Many of our Community colleagues have had the benefits of closer monetary co-operation for about 15 years, and three more countries joined the EMS in January.
It appears that monetary union and the potential single currency will be discussed at Milan and beyond. Colleagues may be interested to hear outside opinions on the British stance before I move on to my opinions.
Last Friday, 1 December, Citibank in Germany held a seminar in Berlin that was addressed by Count Otto von Lambsdorff, the former Commissioner. He said, first, that he had not the least doubt that the United Kingdom will fulfil the convergence criteria. He paid the Government a great compliment. Thus we would be qualified to join the single currency.
Secondly, Count Otto von Lambsdorff suggested that Britain would then refuse to join the single currency. I think that he is probably right about that. Thirdly, he said that he had not the least doubt that later Britain would apply to join. It was his view, fourthly—this was his advice to the gathering of more than 350 bankers and industrialists—that Britain's reluctance to join should not stop the rest of its partners going ahead with a single currency and getting involved if that was what they wished.
We should start discussing a single currency on the assumption that currency union will happen. It may not happen exactly to the Maastricht criteria or exactly to that timetable, but it will happen. It will happen in Europe sooner or later. Not all member countries of the EU will join. Those which join will press ahead without the others. One question, of course, will be whether it is a workable currency union. Of course. Even so, we should consider whether we should join. We hear many arguments about why we should not and I thought that I might adumbrate a few arguments to explain why we should.
There should he no debate about the wisdom of the convergence criteria. We helped write them into the Maastricht treaty. It is good to have low inflation, low

571
interest rates, a stable exchange rate, low Government debt and small budget deficits. I would prefer there to be no budget deficits. As a good Tory I believe in sound currency and sound finance. I see my hon. Friend the Minister nodding vigorously. I take it that those are his beliefs. In any event, it is Government policy. Nothing should stand in our way when it comes to the convergence criteria.
If that is so, to what does opposition to our joining the ERM amount? There are a number of consequences, including loss of flexibility, sovereignty and political control. These are serious issues. I set to one side the dislike of foreigners, misplaced nationalism and a distaste for co-operating with our neighbours and recognising some of them as equals. These are genuine emotions. They certainly exist in the United Kingdom, as they do in other countries. We must discount them because at least in part they are not rational. They are probably not amenable to rational debate whereas I hope that the serious arguments about flexibility are.
We are told that we cannot have a currency union while there are great differences in the economies of the different member states and their regions. It is said that these discrepancies would somehow be dangerous. That argument has been well advanced on several occasions this evening. As economies converge, many of the present differences will disappear. The United Kingdom, having been on the fringe of the economies of Europe is, I hope, moving into a middle-range economy, meaning that we shall neither be the richest nor the poorest. It is a fact that coexistence within currency unions happens all the time between widely different economic areas. That is a simple matter of fact. The United Kingdom is a currency union and has been for a very long time. The city of Liverpool, with an unemployment rate that varies between 15 and 20 per cent., depending on which bit one looks at, has the same currency as, for example, Hampshire, which has an unemployment rate of below 5 per cent. It has the same interest rates. People go to the banks and borrow at the same levels. The Welsh economy shares the same central banking arrangements as England. Technically, Scotland has a separate central bank, but Scottish money is legal tender in England, despite the fact that I can get more quickly from London to Brussels than I can from London to Inverness. The unemployment rate in south Derbyshire, at 5 per cent., co-exists almost exactly with an unemployment rate in Derby, South of 15 per cent. We use the same currency, go to the same banks, have the same interest rates—we manage. Therefore, much of that argument is spurious.
More broadly, the United States, a country with 250 million people, has a single currency, and not a single soul there would recommend that there should be diverse currencies because of different economic conditions. Indeed, nobody there would suggest that a single state would be stronger if it had its own currency, even though some of the states are bigger than those in the European Union.
We are told that currency union enforces political union, which is often a concern of Conservative Members. That is nonsense. The Scots and English have different legal systems; they have different education systems. I happen to think that the Scottish education system is far better than the English one. Ulster and Wales have different types of criminal court; they have a different age of consent. What a 16-year-old girl can get up to in
572
Caernarfon—not a 16-year-old boy—is illegal in Coleraine, where the age of consent is 17. In Wales, she can do it in Welsh as well.
In the United States, in one state one will hang. In another, one will be electrocuted. In a third, one will be given psychoanalysis—assuming that one has committed a homicide, of course. Banking laws differ from state to state more than they do across Europe, and so do official languages in places such as Miami and New York. There is absolutely no reason why countries in a currency union should have to change their social systems or legal arrangements, and we should remind the harmonisers of that when they try to get too enthusiastic. Aspects of our culture are inviolable and do not need to change.
What about the loss of flexibility? Flexibility to do what? To fiddle with the exchange rate, of course, because the whole essence of going into a currency union is fixed exchange rates. I am all in favour of flexibility if that means a little rise here and a little fall there, but that is not what floating exchange rates have meant in the United Kingdom. What we have instead is falling exchange rates, for more than 40 years.
When I was born at the end of the war, £1 sterling would buy DM16. When we applied to join the European Union in the early 1960s, it was DM11. When we got in, it was DM8. When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of this country in 1979, it was DM4. Now it is about DM2.20. We have had a continuous steady process, under all Governments, of a falling exchange rate. All that we can really say with any certainty is that the rate of decline since 1979, where it has halved, is marginally better than in the previous 16 years, where the pound dropped by two thirds. It is a tragedy and a disgrace, for the British disease is no longer wildcat strikes, poor delivery dates and bad management but debasing our currency, as though we were a third-world country. It beggars our nation, devalues the efforts of our people and it is about time that we stopped.
The other loss of flexibility and of sovereignty which is often mentioned, is our ability to control taxation and public spending. Again, that was enunciated several times by Opposition Members. It was that fear that made Labour anti-European for many years. It is a curious irony that the same fear seems to imbue many of my colleagues. But none of it is true. Under the currency union as proposed by the Maastricht treaty, a country could tax as much as it liked, and it could spend as much as it liked. What it could not do was spend more than it taxed to a substantial degree to push up Government borrowing and start printing money. That would lose control of inflation and therefore it is a bad idea. But who in the House wants huge Government deficits? Who in this country advocates printing money? The very fact that every single time the Labour party opens its mouth and we pose the question: "Who is going to pay for this, or are you just going to push up borrowing?", and then see the uncomfortable squirming shows how important the question is for the nation at large.
What do those fears boil down to? That a British Chancellor would no longer be able to allow sterling to depreciate year by year, little by little and that a British Chancellor would no longer be able to spend wildly beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay, either temporarily or in the long term? Both of those seem to me to be commendable outcomes and very strong arguments for being in and not out. Of course, we could behave in that

573
commendable fashion anyway, but we do not and we never have, not in my lifetime. I suspect that only if we had to would we impose on ourselves the necessary discipline and competence.
There is one additional huge advantage were we to join a future well-run single currency, and that will come not so much from stability but credibility. It would be assumed by the markets that British Governments would behave themselves and run the economy responsibly, that we had given up devaluation as an instrument of economic management, and so there is every chance that interest rates would be lower, as they are indeed in other countries that have strong currencies. Observance of the rules would mean that lower inflation, which is entirely beneficial, would be part of our scene. Our voters might then have a more secure attitude to the future and a greater sense of prosperity, and certainty in prosperity. The feel-good factor might return, and would not that be wonderful? Those, as I see them, are the positive arguments for joining.
I conclude with my fears about what will happen if we do not. If we chose not to join a well-run currency union, and our colleagues in the rest of Europe chose to do so, we would not be the stronger nation. We would be weaker. Two thirds of our trade would then be with countries that were relieved of substantial expenses associated with currency risks. Their prices would benefit. That is one of the reasons why they would want to do it. We would not have a stranger currency as a result but a weaker one. I fear in the long run for sterling. The markets would infer that British Governments, possibly of all colours, wished to retain the option of devaluation, and they would react accordingly. We would have signalled that we were not willing to be at the very heart of Europe, and thus we would put at risk future inward investment into the UK, both from the rest of Europe and the United States and Japan.
I have the European Toyota factory in my constituency. I do not think that it would move. I think that the company would keep its promises and stay with us for our lifetime, but the next European Toyota factory might decide to go closer to the heart of Europe. What we would have announced by a decision not to go in, to exercise this opt-out, would be that we believed that our country was a timorous, narrow-minded and backward-looking nation, lacking confidence in its competence to hold its own in open competition, and in so doing we would deliberately have given up our role as one of the leaders of the free Europe that we helped to create 50 years ago.
If we want a Europe that is dominated by Germany, with France and other client countries trotting docilely along behind, the quickest way to ensure such an outcome is to opt out. I hope instead that we will be courageous and join when the time comes.
8.28 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), and I agree with her conclusion. She revealed today, quite clearly, that despite all the efforts of the Foreign Secretary, what was written in The European on 23 November is basically true—he feels that he just has to hold together the fragile unity in his party. The article reads:
574
"The Euro-sceptic wing, confident that it has brow-beaten the Cabinet into accepting a hardline stance, has ceased the remorseless attrition against the Tories' more fervent Europeans. There now exists a fragile truce; Malcolm Rifkind, the new foreign secretary, is the embodiment of that truce."
What we have just heard shows that the truce will not necessarily last for ever because people on the pro-European, perhaps realist, wing of the Conservative party will in time—I hope—reveal the fact that they are not very happy. What we have just heard is an example of that.
It is clear that, despite some of what we have heard. there is a consensus in Britain, and in the House, that Britain's future lies in Europe. The argument is surely about how best to pursue that future in Europe and what are the best ways forward during the next few years.
There has been a strange crossover in the Labour and Conservative parties. The Labour party was, historically, seen to be the anti-European party—Hugh Gaitskell has already been referred to—the party that stood out against the capitalist west European club and for the Commonwealth, our relations with the third world and a vision of a wider world.
The Conservative party had its xenophobic wing and the little Englander nationalism, which is still there, but it also had close links with business. It was probably the only political party to have such links 15 or 20 years ago. That has changed recently, but it could have been thought to represent the interests of British business in its public statements.
Nowadays, the CBI and the Conservative party are increasingly at variance. Many British business people are worried about the Government's stance, for the reasons that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire has just spelt out. They are worried that Britain will be outside the process in Europe, that there will be speculation against our currency, that we will lose inward investment and that we will suffer the job consequences of that.
As a London Member of Parliament with many constituents who travel to central London to work in various financial institutions, I am worried about the long-term consequences for the City of London—not today, not tomorrow, not next year nor in five years' time, but in 15, 20 or 30 years' time when information technology and the transferring of financial institutions' information becomes so vital to our economies that we in London may lose out to Frankfurt or some other European centre. That might not happen—none of us can predict the future accurately—but Britain is taking a big risk if it stays out of these major developments.
There is clearly a great deal of cynicism among the general public about all things European. Very few people—they could be counted on the fingers of one hand if we had one finger—understand the minutiae of the so-called decision-making processes in the European Union. That is a real problem because it means that none of us can really get a grip on jargon such as comitology, co-decision and so on. Even people in the institutions themselves do not really understand it. That means that we cannot be sure who makes decisions, how they are made and how they can be changed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that power had been lost by this Parliament to the European Union's institutions. I do not agree. Parliament lost power many years ago—to our Executive,

575
and our Executive is now conspiring with Executives in other countries to do things behind closed doors, to make deals, to work things out, and neither this Parliament nor national Parliaments in other European countries nor the European Parliament have the ability to keep a check on it. That is why this absurd structure has been built up. That must be considered if we are to restore public confidence, to obtain real accountability and to deal with the democratic deficit.
There is an associated issue of great and fundamental concern. In the European Union today, there are 20 million unemployed people. Different parts of our continent have seen the rise of extremist, nationalist, racist and xenophobic parties and organisations. Fortunately, perhaps because of our electoral system, that is not happening in Britain in quite the same way as it is elsewhere, but it is clearly not sufficient for us to dismiss such issues and say that it does not really matter to us that the far right has growing support in Austria, that the national front in France consistently has between 12 and 15 per cent. of the vote in elections or that neo-Nazis from Germany have been going to Croatia to help in the civil war in former Yugoslavia.
When I saw that the Government were blocking proposals for action against racism and xenophobia, I was appalled. If we are saying that we have superior national legislation against it and that we do not need a European Union-wide approach, where is our law that makes it an offence to deny the holocaust? If the Home Secretary and other Ministers present such legislation in the next year, I might be convinced, but if they are not prepared to do so, I shall be suspicious that they have another agenda, and that it is that they do not want to upset the right wing and the xenophobic and racist vote in Britain.
Mrs. Currie: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that many hon. Members, including people of Jewish origin such as myself, would be deeply frightened at the thought of our stopping free speech in that way. It must be possible to hear an opinion so that it can be destroyed by argument.
Mr. Gapes: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I draw to her attention the comments of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other organisations from the Jewish community in the past week. I think that she will agree that they take a different view. It seems that the hon. Lady thinks that they are wrong, but I happen to agree with them and believe that they have a serious point.
Several measures before the European Union can begin to combat the cynicism and difficulties that are being experienced throughout the European Union. The Swedish Government's proposals to counter unemployment deserve serious support and consideration. We might argue about the small print, we might well say that there are different approaches, but it is completely wrong for our Government to dismiss them and say that we are not interested. I hope that, when the Government changes in the near future, we shall have a much more positive approach.
Europe is not just a single market. It is not just a free trade area. It has not been since its inception and it is absurd for people to pretend that we can somehow transform it into one. Neither by undermining the acquis communautaire, which was called for by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), nor by restricting and blocking any attempt to change will we succeed.
576
The Government say that they want enlargement. It is not possible to enlarge the European Union from 15 to 20 or 25 countries without doing something about accountability and the decision-making processes. Without such change, we would end up with deadlock. It is absurd that a country as small as Luxembourg can effectively block measures to deal with fraud. It would be absurd if countries in southern Europe, benefiting financially from tobacco subsidies, could block reform of the CAP that sought to eliminate that scandal. It would be absurd if countries could prevent progress towards enlargement because they could prevent changes in the budgetary relationship and distribution.
We currently spend 50 per cent. of all European Union money on the common agricultural policy. That is far too much. In a country such as ours, with a largely urban manufacturing population—only a small percentage of the population is employed in agriculture or in agriculture-related industries—it is nonsensical that the vast majority should pay so much to subsidise agricultural systems elsewhere as well as in their own country.
During the past few months, there have been changes in world market prices that affect the future of stockpiles of various products. Nevertheless, the CAP as a system must go. The Foreign Secretary conceded that when he said that it could not be extended to Poland, Hungary and the other agricultural applicant countries. If that is the case we shall need allies to secure change. That is why we need to build a coalition with other countries, and why reform of the institutional framework will become necessary.
Enlargement will not be confined to the Visegrad countries. It is wrong to view those four countries as a bloc. This week, I met the Leader of Slovakia's Opposition, and was worried by what I was told about the authoritarian behaviour of Mr. Meciar towards his opponents. Because of its high growth rate, Slovakia might become economically capable of joining the European Union with the other applicants, but I do not think that we should allow into the Union countries that have not become accustomed to the concept of a democratic Opposition who have a right to protest, a right to vote down Governments if they can secure the majority in Parliament and a right to campaign against Government policies.
The Estonians have also just applied to join the European Union. As one who has visited Estonia a number of times, I am still not convinced—despite the economic growth and development that has taken place in the country in the past few years—that adequate safeguards for dealing with the substantial Russian-speaking minority yet exist. Again, we must be very careful: the European Union must be clear about its democratic standards and its standards in regard to respect for minorities.
Far more serious is the fact that there can he no question of allowing Croatia into the European Union, because of the abuses of human rights there, the expulsion of 200,000 people from Krajina and the other atrocities that have been perpetrated at the behest of President Tudjman. I know that today's debate is not about Yugoslavia, but the Government should consider seriously whether they are prepared to refer senior figures in Croatia—including President Tudjman—to the war crimes tribunal on the basis of what has gone on in recent months.

577
Increasingly important in world politics and in Europe are arguments about self-determination, nationalism and the rights of minorities. The European Union potentially provides a way in which to deal with those problems: recognition of the rights of regions, and of the fact that diversity and different structures are possible within an institution that brings people together. That must be handled sensitively and carefully, however. It would be a big mistake to imagine that any country can be allowed into the European Union, regardless of other factors.
The European Union is a magnet: everyone wants to join it. Despite the litany of horrors that we have heard from some hon. Members on both sides of the House, the overwhelming view in eastern and central Europe is that people want to be part of the European Union, for very good reasons. They see the Union as a source of stability, prosperity and democracy. That is why it is about time that we stopped arguing about the institutional framework, and started to argue about the vision of the Europe that we wish to create—a Europe based on co-operation and diversity. It is not sufficient to argue that all that we need do is say, "No, no, no." We had a Prime Minister who did that a few years ago, and look what happened to her.
I believe that, in the next year, when the time comes, the British public will say that they want to participate actively at the centre of the decisions that will be made about the future of our country. They will not be content with a Government who decide to block all initiatives from elsewhere. For that reason, I am confident that the IGC will have a positive outcome that is in the interests of the country, our people and the prosperity and peace of all Europe.
8.55 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall try to gallop through my speech in order not to trespass too much on the time of the Front-Bench spokesmen. I hope that, in galloping, I shall not garble, but in my part of Leicestershire we are quite used to galloping.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he did not want a radical rewriting of the treaties governing the European Union and the IGC; he wanted practical steps towards improvement in the workings of the Union. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) simply to complain about, for example, Lady Thatcher's attitude to the European Union—or the European Community, as it was in those days—or about what he believes to be the Conservative party's attitude towards the institutions. Only through the proper working of those institutions can we secure the co-operation between nations on which the hon. Gentleman seems so keen. I urge him to lay aside the mantra of attacking the Conservative party on the issue; it must be realised that the best way in which to achieve what is best for Britain and for Europe is to ensure proper arrangement in the institutions.
I, too, welcome the enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of eastern and central Europe, but we and they have a great deal to do before their accession. What we must not do is promise them more than we can deliver, or raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled. I want Cyprus and Malta to enter the European Union, but Malta in particular must be prepared to recognise its duty
578
to assist in enforcing British court orders by convention and out of respect for the comity of nations, which it seems remarkably reluctant to do. In this respect, I refer to the case of my constituent, Mrs. Anna Bergmann, who is the beneficiary of a financial settlement order from the High Court's family division in London, made against her ex-husband who is now resident in Malta.
The Madrid summit will take place next week on 15 and 16 December. It is to be chaired—I may be wrong but, anyhow, it does not matter—by Carlos Westendorp, the Spanish Foreign Affairs Minister. He in particular reminds us of the historic links between Spain and the low countries, places that were once linked through a common Crown and are now members of the same European Union. If we and they are not too careful, however, they may eventually be linked again—and more closely—as separate provinces within a United States of Europe, having to fend and contend with a single currency.
Whether Mr. Westendorp's Government will be in power long enough to witness the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference is debatable. What is more certain is that his British counterpart, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will be in office, not only when the IGC convenes next year, but when it completes its deliberations.
The reflection group, which has been preparing for the IGC, has been meeting since 3 June and my hon. Friend the Minister has been travelling to and from Europe to attend its meetings. Unlike some representatives of the member states, however, he is not only a member of our legislature, but a politically accountable and aware Minister. He knows, as all Ministers must know, what his fellow parliamentarians want to come out of the IGC. As important, if not even more important, he knows from his constituents what the British people require and what they do not want from the IGC.
Unlike many mainland European politicians, who have been elected by proportional representation and put into government by post-election backroom deals, and who represent a party list rather than individual constituents, our Ministers in every Department engaged in European Union affairs are closely in tune and in touch with our country's citizens. They do not pay lip service to the democratic process, but daily must respect it and respond to it.
The major fault of European federal enthusiasts, of the integrationists, is that they belong to that school of politics that sees no real need to listen to or to consult the public because they know what is best for the people. They have decided, for example, that there will be a unified single currency by a given date. In France, the political elite seems prepared to destroy social harmony in order to meet the convergence criteria, no matter what the consequences, long or short term. The elitism of so much of continental political thought and practice, although sometimes majestic to behold, is not always beneficial to the state or to the people whom the politicians believe they are governing.
In the few minutes left to me in the debate, I want to concentrate on just one of the five subjects considéred by the reflection group: common foreign and security policy. In its first report on the CFSP, the group identified as the problem with that policy, as presently constituted, the separation of the European Union's external policy dimension and its external economic dimension. Whereas

579
the bulk of, if not all, decisions on economic matters can be taken by qualified majority voting, CFSP decisions require unanimity.
That is not a problem, but a strength, as it recognises the delicate nature of security issues for each member state and underscores my view that no Government have a right to delegate their people's allegiance to the sovereign. By that, I mean not simply the Queen or the monarchy, or the Crown in Parliament: I mean that intangible concept of nationhood, which I accept is easier to recognise than to define, but which applies to all democratic states.
I am saying not that it is wrong to ask our fellow citizens to fight for Europe, for liberal democracy or against totalitarianism, but that it is for this Parliament, or at any rate a Government supported by this Parliament as representing the popular will, to hold to itself the decisions about which battles to fight and which wars to wage.
We, or at least my parents, my grandparents and their generations, have fought for freedom and for Europe. They have been soldiers in allied armies and in other military formations commanded by foreign generals, but that does not mean a loss of statehood or of national determination in time of war. It represents the consequence of a national decision to act on security matters in and for the national interest. Even now, and obviously, the historical and geographical links that differ from country to country—one takes the most obvious examples of France and the United Kingdom—demonstrate that there are interests that we and, for example, the French have which go well beyond the shores of Europe. That surely must allow us to take our own decisions unfettered by a common foreign and security policy.
For the IGC to amend the treaty of Rome to "cure" the problem that I identified earlier, because member states are worried that the CFSP's lack of qualified majority voting is a cause of its ineffectiveness, is badly to misunderstand the question. A CFSP cannot be dealt with suitably if some aspects remain subject to unanimity and some are made subject to QMV. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to retreat into that sort of compromise which, no matter how comfortable and attractive it might seem at 5 o'clock in the morning in the IGC meeting room, is a dangerously flawed solution.
Soon, thousands of NATO troops will have been deployed in Bosnia. They will include troops from Britain, France, America and even Germany. There, in my submission, is the evidence we need to demonstrate that a CFSP in Europe is for Governments acting in their own national interests but in concert, making decisions based on shared analyses and shared intelligence and doing something together because they all believe it to be right and achievable.
An intergovernmental foreign and security policy, not a European Union foreign and security policy, works. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister in his meetings, and his colleagues in their meetings at Cabinet level, to pursue such a policy. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the outset, the IGC should be about practicalities, not about wish lists or pipe dreams. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to steel himself to that task in the months that remain before the IGC.
9.6 pm
Ms Joyce Quin: Like all European debates this has been predictably wide ranging because of the nature of the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that these debates were sometimes seen as routine. However, in this debate hon. Members on both sides of the House have dealt with many new elements of the changing European situation, particularly the opening up of the European Union to the countries of central and eastern Europe. Hon. Members have also mentioned the changing economic circumstances which are affecting the major countries in the European Union now.
Sharp differences of view have been expressed on both sides of the House and, occasionally, on the same side of the House. Hon. Members have also mentioned matters of widespread and common concern. Virtually all hon. Members talked about the need for the intergovernmental process to be seen as relevant to the citizens of the countries represented in the European Union. A thread running through many speeches was that an intergovernmental conference which seemed to be a Maastricht mark 2 would not be widely welcomed and that we want to avoid any huge gap between the so-called political elites of Europe and the populations of Europe. We need to take that to heart. Presumably, when the Minister replies to the debate and reports on the activities of the reflection group, he will refer to that.
There was widespread support for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood). He referred to the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation and mentioned some of the important aspects of the way in which the House looks at European legislation and how that could be improved in the future. He said that the report contained a litany of failures and, in many ways, that is so. He said that the report talks about the undue secrecy involved in European deliberations, the frustration of dealing with unofficial texts rather than with official and properly translated documents, the frustrating delays facing the Select Committee on European Legislation and European Standing Committees A and B when looking at European legislation and, allied to the delays, the inadequate time that they have to consider what are sometimes very important matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale also, quite rightly, called for much more efficient and swift communication between European institutions. It seems absurd, with modern technology, that some communications procedures seem to take so long. That does not help the important business of scrutiny.
The Government frequently hide in scrutiny Committees—especially European Standing Committees A and B—matters that should be debated on the Floor of the House. In European Standing Committee B recently. I have been dealing with enlargement and other wide-ranging issues which, despite the useful work done in the Committee, should be dealt with on the Floor of the House. However, the Government sometimes do not want to parade their divisions in front of us.
We want the Government to go further and push for much greater openness within the European decision-making process. We want them to agree with our view that, when the Council of Ministers makes decisions as a legislature, it should do so openly so that the people

581
can have full knowledge of how votes were cast at the critical time. We certainly support the proposals for greater openness from some of the other Governments in the EU, especially from the Swedish Government, but also from the Dutch and Danish Governments. We rejoice that there have been some successes in ensuring that more documents are available, not just to national Parliaments but to the wider public. That is essential if people are to see the European project as more relevant and if they are to be more directly connected with it.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House referred in considerable detail to economic and monetary union and the proposed single currency, including the Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
Many hon. Members referred to the convergence criteria, the reaction to them by different countries—not just Britain—and the question of how those criteria might or might not be met. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) predicted that Britain would fulfil the criteria, but not join the single currency. I do not know whether she was thinking that that would happen under her Government or under a future Government. However, it was significant that at Question Time today the Prime Minister once again refused to be specific. He also refused to rule out joining a single currency, as he was urged to do by many of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
There are difficulties with the move towards the creation of a single currency. Many hon. Members referred to the position in France. However, it is not just the constraint of trying to meet the convergence criteria that is causing difficulty in France; some of the policies and commitments entered into by the French Government, in particular the difficult to reconcile promises that they made during the French election, have caused problems. They promised to increase public spending, especially on unemployment and education, while at the same time taking action to cut the budget deficit. They promised to raise public sector wages, while at the same time cutting taxation. Many of the protests in France relate to some of those matters, not simply to possible strictures arising from the convergence criteria.
There was considerable discussion about the convergence criteria and the need, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston rightly referred, to achieve real convergence, to tackle the problem of unemployment in Europe and to ensure that we can go forward in a climate that is conducive to economic growth, not economic cuts. During the debate on how strict or flexible the criteria could be, it would be advisable to stress other parts of the Maastricht treaty in arguing for policies to promote employment. For example, article 2 of the Maastricht treaty talks about sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, high levels of employment and social protection, and so on. We must use some of those arguments in approaching the convergence criteria.
Mr. Shore: The significant difference though, is that those rather few references of an encouraging kind are in
582
general terms. They are not in quantifiable figures as are the convergence criteria, which are in the treaty, the protocols and other associated documents. There really is a world of difference between just a reference to the desirability of growth and strict criteria of a quantitative kind which impose strong deflationary obligations on member states.
Ms Quin: I greatly respect my right hon. Friend, but I should point out that article 2 is right at the beginning of the treaty of Maastricht. It is one of its basic commitments. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston referred to the way in which article 2 could be supplemented by other action in the EU. He specifically referred to the proposals of the Swedish Government and others.
Obviously, in the European Union, there will be a very keen debate between people who favour different economic approaches. It is true that in Germany they have talked about tightening up the criteria even further, although the treaty would not provide any great solace in that respect. At the same time, there are genuine concerns among countries that have always been in the vanguard of the European project, such as Italy, France and Belgium, that the criteria could cause difficulty.
During the intergovernmental conference and beyond, there will be some very pertinent debates on those subjects. I would certainly closely align our views, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, with those of the Swedish Government and others who are supporting them on the subject, to try to give much greater priority to the all-important task of fighting unemployment.
We also believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, that it is important to build on some of the initiatives in the Delors package, which were agreed by countries, although, sadly, they were watered down, largely at the insistence, or at least the keen encouragement, of the British Government and their representatives.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to enlargement to include the countries of central and eastern Europe. Like all hon. Members who have spoken, the Labour party and I are very much in favour of it. It is important, however, to go beyond the general expressions of welcome for the idea of enlargement and to start to grapple with some of the practical problems that it brings with it.
Despite the fact that the Foreign Secretary's speech was controversial—at least, half of it was—we all felt great sympathy with him on one matter: some of the petty and mean-minded protectionist instincts that certain countries have shown towards the countries of central and eastern Europe. I noted that most of the examples, if not all, that the Foreign Secretary gave related to agriculture. That shows that the battle over the accession of countries of central and eastern Europe will largely be fought over agricultural policy.
We certainly consider that battle an opportunity to reform the common agricultural policy in the way that we have argued for a long time—to give agricultural support to those who actually need it, and not encourage large-scale production at very high consumer prices. We should find a way forward which is much more respectful of the natural environment, the future of which concerns us all, right across Europe. We should also try to ensure

583
that the policy operates in such a way that it does not distort world markets and harm the exporting possibilities of developing countries, as has happened for far too many years. The discussions about enlargement to the countries of central and eastern Europe provide an opportunity.
We share the Government's keenness to pursue this approach. However, I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) when he said that enlargement should not be seen as a dilution of the European Union into a free trade area. We are talking not about a free trade area but about trying to construct a system of co-operation across Europe which suits the citizens of our countries and Europe as a whole.
There have been sharp divisions on certain aspects of European policy in this debate. That was especially evident in the interventions during the Foreign Secretary's speech, especially those by Conservative Members. The intervention by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) contrasted sharply with those by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
Today seems to have been an active day for each Euro-tendency within the Conservative party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, we started the day with the announcement by the Euro-sceptics of a White Paper whose existence has seemed to become more dubious during the day, but which still seems to be on track to be published at some time in the future.
We have also heard today about pro-European Conservative Members of the European Parliament challenging the Government's increasingly sceptical approach with a series of policy papers calling for a substantial move towards integration. Those co-ordinated publications are intended to reinforce the attempts by Members of the European Parliament to challenge what they see as a dangerous drift towards isolationism by the Conservative Government. The challenge seems somewhat doomed because, as other hon. Members have pointed out, it seems to be the Euro-sceptics who have the upper hand in the Government's deliberations. As has also been pointed out, we have the prospect next week of the right hon. Member for Wokingham launching his new campaign to try to extract from the Government specific commitments against the moves towards a single currency.
Throughout it all, the Prime Minister remains steadfastly and resolutely indecisive. He tries to be at the heart of Europe while pursuing an actively isolationist stance, no doubt ending up somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic.
There are different points of view on both sides of the House, as we have seen in this debate; I accept that. What concerns us, however, is that the divisions within the Government ranks, even within the Cabinet, are weakening Britain's position in Europe. They are losing us influence in Europe and we seem continually to be negotiating with one hand tied firmly behind our back.
I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston about the strong and solid support which our white paper on the future of the European Union and the preparations for the intergovernmental conference received at the Labour party conference in October. That is in stark contrast to the disunity shown by Cabinet Ministers on this important issue.
584
The debate has allowed us to clear up some deliberate misconceptions about Labour's policy expressed by Conservative Ministers. It was good to hear the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) talk in sensible terms about the social chapter. He did not talk with what the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) rightly described as the frenzy and froth of European debates. The social chapter is important; it is a general commitment to giving people at work and citizens in the European Union a fair deal at their place of work. That is extremely important.
However, the social chapter does not represent a huge raft of specific measures, although more measures may be proposed under it. At present we are talking about no more than two specific measures, and so far the chief legislative measure has been the European works council directive.
We must draw the contrast between what the Government are saying and what British businesses are doing. Today, we read in one of the newspapers that the Engineering Employers Federation is to urge its members to adopt the European works council directive in spite of Britain's opt-out from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty.
The federation has found that none of its member companies intends to exclude its British workers from any procedures or systems that it is bound under the directive to introduce in its operations elsewhere in the European Union. That gives the lie to many of the extravagant claims made by the Government about the directive.
Reference has been made to the speech by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party at the Confederation of British Industry conference, and to me the words that he said there represented common sense. He talked about considering the proposals that come from Europe, which we do in any sphere—social, environmental, economic or whatever—anyway, and about negotiating about them with our European partners. That is the route that virtually all proposed legislation in Europe already takes.
Of course it is sensible to consider the proposals closely and to consult the various people who will be affected by them. If we do so, it is more likely that the legislation passed will be in people's interests, and will be workable and easy to implement in our different countries.
The world prosperity league has been mentioned many times lately, and I must point out that countries that have done well in recent years and also over a longer period, ever since the end of the second world war, have on the whole, although not always, been those that have treated their work forces well in many different ways. It is absurd to demonise European social policy and the social chapter, as Conservative Members so often do.
Today at Question Time, the Prime Minister said that Labour favoured massive new powers for the European Parliament. Nothing in our document backs up that idea. Members of the European Parliament themselves have not been calling for massive new powers. They know that they were given new powers under the Maastricht treaty, and that it will take time for those to be fully tested and tried out. The proposals in our document for streamlining the European Parliament and making it more effective are largely welcomed by them.

585
We feel that there are areas in which the European Parliament and national parliaments should work together to complement each other in the important scrutiny in which they are both involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said how inaccessible to the House are some of the matters considered under the third pillar, dealing with justice and home affairs.
The Labour party firmly believes that that important pillar should remain intergovernmental, but the issues covered by it should be debated in our national parliaments, and we should know what is going on in that important aspect of policy. We should not suddenly be surprised at the last minute by a fundamental decision that the Council of Ministers may have taken in that area.
I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said about the disgraceful conduct of the Home Secretary in vetoing action at European level against racism and xenophobia. Those are important matters. We know that there are problems of increased racism and xenophobia in many parts of the European Union. We believe that, just as the EU has a good record in opposing discrimination against women in the large single market, it should be similarly vigorous in trying to prevent discrimination on racial grounds. It is simply unforgivable for the Government to be smug about the fact that we have some good provisions in this country and to say that therefore there is no need to take any further action at a European level.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), has become known as Mr. No in Europe because of his obstructionist and negative attitude; yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out, last week at Foreign Office questions the Minister—who had said that he was against qualified majority voting on principle—said that he favoured the massive extension of qualified majority voting when we accepted the Single European Act because it was in Britain's interests. That is precisely the point. The Opposition think that in the rather modest areas where we favour qualified majority voting—such as social and environmental issues—it is in Britain's interests. In that sense, we are taking exactly the same point of view as the Minister of State. He seems to accept that the single market is in Britain's interests, but that no social or environmental policy is. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him on that.
Finally, Labour firmly believes that its approach to the European Union will give the British people a better deal out of our European Union membership. We believe that our approach to economic, social, environmental and agricultural questions in Europe will give the British people that fairer deal, and will also—happily—be in the interests of the long-term development of Europe as a whole. The sooner we are in a position to deliver that good deal to the British people and end the European failures of the present Government, the better.
I did not agree with the prediction of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that the present Government will still be in power at the end of the intergovernmental process. We very much look forward to helping to complete that process when we are in government. I believe that, once again, the points that have been made in this debate have shown clearly that Britain's influence and position in Europe will only be improved under Labour.
9.31 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): This has been a serious and reflective debate—perhaps, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, more so than usual. It has certainly not been a routine debate. That, in part, is because it has taken place at a timely moment—two days after the signature of the study group report on the IGC, and a week before the European Council in Madrid that will preface the IGC. These two events offer an illuminating perspective from which to gauge the recent change in attitude within the EU.
Ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable that subjects such as subsidiarity and deregulation would have featured prominently on the European Council agenda. A study group report that extolled the virtues of national parliaments and nation states and made no overt reference to federalism would have been equally inconceivable. Yet those are today's realities. The change has come about to a very large extent because the United Kingdom has been resolute in pressing our vision of an effective, responsible and flexible European Union.
Let us be clear: we need an effective European Union. We need a Europe that can deliver the single market, a Europe that can promote effective co-operation on cross-border issues and a Europe that will keep up the effort to contribute to opening markets, both within the Union and outside it. We want a Europe that recognises that it must win back people's confidence. I take the point made in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) about the need to handle the public's perception of the Union. He made some wise and insightful comments.
We need a Europe that will not interfere where it is not needed and will not undermine national sovereignty. We need an effective Europe with an institutional structure that harnesses the strength and diversity of member states, and I stress "diversity", which was recognised in the reflection group report. Britain's agenda for Europe concentrates on the real issues—job creation, encouraging enterprise, scrapping unnecessary regulations and making a real and effective effort to tackle the fraud and waste that damages public respect for the Union. It concentrates on enhancing Europe's security through practical measures, rather than through doctrinal Euro-waffle and Euro-theology. The British people have no time for arcane and obscure institutional irrelevances—what the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) rightly called the dry rot of Europe.
We need a flexible Europe that builds on the innovative, intergovernmental arrangements created at Maastricht instead of trying to dismantle them. We need a European Union that recognises that the structures that work well for the single market would not work for foreign security policy or for a number of other policies. We need a flexible Europe that can cope with countries with different traditions, different histories and, certainly, differing economic circumstances.
I began by noting that what was once unthinkable—at least outside London—now obtains in at least some parts of mainstream European thinking. As the problems facing Europe change, we are often the first to face up to the new realities. It is not always comfortable and it is not always politically expedient, but being in a minority has never deterred us before. My right hon. Friend the

587
Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) made a powerful speech in which he mentioned being one of a minority. He said, rightly, that when we are isolated we must know the purpose for standing out; I agree. We must consider each proposal on its merits and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, in the light of our national interest. If we had been deterred by being in a minority we would have forgotten about ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity was accepted in the treaty; we would have abandoned enlargement; we would have given up our competitiveness and we certainly would not have had a Commission President whose motto is "Less action, but better action."
Within this framework we have developed our approach to the IGC. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has outlined our general approach. During the study group meetings it has been noticeable that some of the wilder ideas that emerged two or three years ago have failed to surface. No one ran with the idea of exclusive hard cores; no one mentioned the prospect of the Council becoming a second Chamber of the European Parliament.
Hon. Members should not get me wrong: the federalists have not given up; the federalist impulse has not disappeared and there are still many who fight hard for more centralisation and more power for Brussels. Those points were made in the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and picked up, in his usual assiduous way, by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who mentioned some of issues in the study group's report.
The balance is changing—the changes are sometimes driven by popular opinion in member states and by circumstances. The debate has moved on from what became known as the fundamentalist agenda. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) was right when he quoted the Italian press—albeit that it may have been too flattering about me. When the Italian press interviewed members of the study group and asked whether they were concerned about the "Obstructionism of Britain", they replied that they were not at all concerned. They said that Britain was constructive and that the biggest problem arose from the fundamentalists. I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that it was interesting that virtually every member of the British press asked the same questions and was disappointed with the answers, so his adage is doubly relevant.
It is not surprising, therefore, that I found significant support in the group for many key UK themes. We were supported on subsidiarity, on competitiveness, on the role of national parliaments, on enlargement and on relevance to the citizen—a point that came up time and again, partly because we pushed it very hard. There were also matters on which there was no consensus, but in those cases we were frequently one of a majority or one of a large minority—one such example involved common foreign and security policy. Some of our views on this were put rather well by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). In our view, a more effective common foreign policy can be achieved by improved CFSP machinery and by the exercise of more political will to use it. It will not be achieved, as some would like, by voting models that override the key concerns of minorities, replacing a common policy with a majority one—a single loud voice with a babble. That would allow
588
foreign policy questions to isolate and ostracise members of the Union, thereby internalising what were external problems before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) made a number of important points on defence, WEU and security issues. He said that there should be no membership of WEU without prior membership of NATO. I could not agree more. Membership of WEU requires the sort of security guarantees that only NATO can deliver. A country cannot logically be a full member of WEU, therefore, without also joining NATO.
My hon. Friend highlighted the combination of special circumstances: the situation of the neutrals, the need to preserve sovereignty in defence and the need to preserve and reinforce NATO. These led to the careful design of the policy proposal that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published earlier this year on WEU and its relationship with the EU. It is a policy that I believe will gain supporters in Europe as the IGC progresses.
As for the so-called third pillar—justice and home affairs—we have argued, and will continue to argue, for improved co-operation in the fight against drugs and international crime. The federalists—the centralisers—wanted to communitise some of these areas, arguing that the third pillar had not worked. We do not believe that. It is new, and much has been achieved in practical terms in the past two years, besides four major conventions and a deal of useful co-operation behind the scenes between national law enforcement agencies. I think that about 600 items of information have already been exchanged in connection with international crime. There is still scope for streamlining decision-making procedures in this area, but it must remain firmly intergovernmental.
I also argued in the study group for a European Union that is more relevant and acceptable to people. People rightly say that there is still too much over-regulatory, ambiguous and intrusive legislation from Brussels. To deal with it, we need further to entrench subsidiarity, to prevent interference in matters that should be ours to decide. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made some excellent points in this connection; I agreed with much of what he said.
The Commission must also be obliged to consult more widely before preparing major new harmonising legislation. We shall pursue our efforts to deregulate in Europe, in parallel with, and if necessary within, the IGC.
We need to reform the European Court of Justice, not to weaken it, which is an occasional misapprehension. We must make its judgments more appropriate and more acceptable, and we have submitted a paper to the study group to that effect.
I also explained to the group the priority that the Government attach to improving democracy in the European Union, with a bigger role for national parliaments and a bigger say for member states following enlargement, in terms of the weighting of votes. The hon. Member for Clydesdale talked about his Scrutiny Committee, which has made extremely positive proposals that were well received by the study group. I took the liberty of recommending the proposal that declaration 13 be incorporated in the treaty. I am glad to say that that was later agreed by the Cabinet committee that gives me orders. That would help to meet the points that the hon.

589
Gentleman raised in respect of timing and of proper information being passed to the Scrutiny Committee and other Committees of this House before measures are taken in Europe.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Clydesdale is no longer here, because I should like to thank him for his compliments. I look forward to the Committee's next proposals in response to the points that we have made. I reinforce the hon. Gentleman's point that declarations are not good enough—action and performance matter, and we need practical measures.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) mentioned transparency. A new code of conduct was adopted in October, under which most of the minutes made when the Council is dealing with legislation are made available. We were at the forefront of securing that change, but complete openness would probably be counterproductive in areas where negotiations take place. It could have the effect of driving negotiations into the corridor, which would be exactly the opposite of that intended. Nevertheless, we understand only too well the hon. Lady's point.
People in Britain—and increasingly in other member states—emphatically do not want more transfers of power away from national Governments to the centre. The British Government will not accept further extension of majority voting, any watering down of intergovernmentalism of the pillars or massive new powers for the European Parliament.
Mr. Shore: We all welcome the four weeks' notice of any Commission proposal before it is debated as it allows the House to deal with it. Another proposal that could be valuable in the same direction appeared in a recent Select Committee report from the other place, which was published on 3 November and which related to the third pillar. There was a general feeling that far too many decisions could be made in the House of Lords without adequate discussion in this House. The Select Committee recommended that a Council decision on a third pillar instrument should be invalidated unless the national parliament of each member state had been offered, in accordance with the procedures applicable in each member state, an opportunity to express its view. That procedure would make a valuable addition. What does the Minister think?
Mr. Davis: We are reviewing some of the proposals of the Scrutiny Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee, and of the Select Committee in the other place. It is a complex area and we must devise proposals that work for every Parliament in Europe. We know only too well how getting that wrong could have perverse effects. We have been considering the issues for some months but because they are complex and the effects in different constitutional arrangements are difficult to predict, we are taking time to reach a conclusion.
The appearance of isolation is not always what it seems. I will give an example. We were the only member state opposed in principle to the extension of qualified majority voting. If one looks closer at the report, one sees that some people link their support for more QMV to the reweighting of votes between smaller and larger states. That is not an enthusiasm for more qualified majority
590
voting but a negotiating stance or linkage, prior to the intergovernmental conference. I do not want to be drawn in to debating our negotiating tactics but, in my judgment, the situation will change over the year, with different states taking different stances to achieve what they want.
Even people who appear to support more QMV in principle often have trouble with the practical implications. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 65 of the report. Behind all the jargon lies the point that some member states do not wish to abandon the remaining unanimity requirements in certain areas, unless another member state is willing to pay for the consequences. That will not come easily. I highlight that so that the House will understand that the issue is not so clear-cut as perhaps the British press and the press elsewhere made it appear. Even if the United Kingdom were to withdraw from the debate, which I can assure the House it will not, the remaining member states would find it rather difficult to square their differences in some instances.
It is not Britain's occasional isolationism that undermines its national interests. On the contrary, we have achieved much in the past precisely because we have been willing to be isolated. It is not merely being tough-minded in our tactics. In the past, we have secured vital opt-outs by being willing to be isolated. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) did not comment on whether he thought the opt-out that we obtained on the single currency was good or bad when he was asked about that.
Our national interest would be undermined, however, by Labour's socialist surrenders to Brussels. It has said as much itself in terms of surrendering the veto on social, industrial, regional and environmental policies. It would surrender our hard-fought social chapter opt-out and any permanent opt-outs. Such action would undermine Britain's sovereignty in what I consider to he supine acquiescence to creeping federalism.
It is not difficult to see the consequences. It is difficult, however, to understand why Labour pursues such a line. Perhaps the leader of the Labour party feels that his party would win some credit by adopting such a policy and not letting Britain become isolated. I do not think so. Perhaps he feels that he would be seen as more communautaire.
It is a policy born solely of ignorance. If even one member of the Opposition Front Bench had served on the Council of Ministers, he or she would know that no other nation in Europe fears being isolated when its national interest is at stake. Do Labour Members think that France would hesitate? Do they think that Spain would'? Do they believe that any member state would surrender its policy through fear of being in a minority?
Mr. Spearing: Look at GATT.
Mr. Davis: Indeed.
Labour's policy of compliance would purchase nothing but it could cost everything. No wonder some federalists in Europe are hoping for a Labour Government. Such an Administration would lead to the most foolish and pointless surrender that it is possible to imagine.
Labour would like to cover up its weaknesses. We know that only a few weeks ago its leader told the CBI that a Labour Government would merely pick and choose those elements of the social chapter that were good for Britain. As most of the social chapter is decided by

591
qualified majority voting and as those parts that are not now would be if Labour had its way, the leader of the Labour party would not have any choice.
That point was made clearly by Adair Turner, the director general of the CBI, who was speaking only last weekend. He said:
"If you sign up to the social chapter you can't actually be sure that you will have your way because some directives will be covered by qualified majority voting. There is, however, a way to pick and choose, and that is available to the Labour party if it wants to have it as its policy. The way to pick and choose is actually not to sign up to the social chapter."
In effect, that is the CBI speaking in response to the speech delivered by the leader of the Labour party.
There are implications. Several hon. Members, however, have tried to suggest that the social chapter is not especially important or serious. When we fought and won our opt-out of the social chapter, Jacques Delors did not like it. I think that he said that it would make Britain a paradise for investment. He was right. Many of his fellow travellers in Europe recognised that he was right. They knew that Britain had already won far more than its share of inward investment in Europe. They knew that the more that they increased the burden of the social chapter the more advantage we would have. As a result, they became much more cautious about using it. They tried to put some of their proposed legislation into other articles, including health and safety. Other proposals have been held back, at least for the moment.
Again, I refer to the director general of the CBI, speaking only last weekend:
"We oppose this because of our broad belief that the continent does now have a major problem with inflexible labour markets and high social costs, and because of our fear that once we accept the social chapter there will be an ever-creeping tendency to extend its operation."
One effect of the opt-out has been to limit the growth of the social chapter, or to curb the enthusiasm of the social engineers. But if the opt-out disappeared—if Labour destroyed it—the limits on the social chapter would disappear. Much more would go into it. That would damage not only Britain's ability but Europe's too.
The Labour leader, speaking last weekend, claimed to have a new agenda for Europe. It was, he said, enlargement, competition and CAP reform. Had he been promoting that agenda some years ago, he would, given his other views, have discovered something of an uncomfortable fact. Enlargement was, of course, already a British position, a minority position; competitiveness was already a British position, a minority position; and CAP reform was already a British position, again, a minority position. He tries to claim those positions, because he thinks that they are popular, but they are popular today only because we stood up for them yesterday.
The Labour leader has made it clear that there is no issue on which he is prepared to stand alone, and, accordingly, no President of the Commission is ever likely to say of him what Jacques Santer has said of us:
"Very often it is British initiatives that end up being Europe's mainstream policy."
The Government have a clear vision for Europe: a Europe of effective co-operation between sovereign nations; a Europe responsive to ordinary people's concerns; and a Europe flexible enough to do its work in the most appropriate way. From that vision, we draw our
592
agenda for the intergovernmental conference. The Government's agenda is realistic and positive. It will serve Britain's interests and Europe's too. That last point needs emphasising.
The European debate is not a contest between the needs of the United Kingdom and the needs of Europe. Advancing the interests of the British people is not simply about saying yes or no to ideas or proposals from our partners. The Government's approach offers more: a model for Europe that can meet the different needs of all its peoples. Some members of the Union will want to co-operate more closely in some areas, and our vision recognises that. All members of the Union will want the business that they do together to be done efficiently and to good effect. Our vision encourages that.
Above all, members of the Union will have to confront the challenges that enlargement poses—the hard questions that closer monetary co-operation sets. Our approach reflects that, too. The issues are difficult, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) elicited only too clearly. I repeat the point that I made to him: the reason why these policy issues were not within the reflection group report was not that their importance was underestimated. They are issues to be dealt with not within the IGC but in parallel to it.
Some may prefer not to face these difficult issues today, but wishing them away is not an option. Asking the questions and finding the right answers is vital to Europe's future success. We do not shy away from the task. Indeed, we cannot afford to do so, because our national interest demands that we anticipate and confront these challenges.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) eloquently raised the challenge of European monetary union. Our caution about signing up to rigid timetables and our freedom to opt out or opt in on stage 3 of EMU has been clearly vindicated by events throughout Europe. Although he perhaps did not intend to do so, that point was reinforced firmly by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney in an extraordinarily effective speech on this issue. Indeed, it was also reinforced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough.
The hard questions that we have been raising all along about EMU are now becoming the currency of discussion within the European Union, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's meeting with his Italian counterpart demonstrated yesterday.
In other areas, too, the positions that we have taken seem increasingly justified. We welcome the French decision this week to draw closer to NATO. That is further confirmation that the alliance remains the bedrock of our security. The objective of European defence co-operation must be to keep the alliance strong.
The kind of union that we want to see is one in which all its members can feel comfortable and from which all its members can profit. It is a union that recognises that Europe and Europe's interests do not end at the frontiers of the 15 member states. There is a wider Europe slowly being reunited. To the north and the east there is a wider Europe of nations coming to terms with their new freedom. It is for us to ensure that they succeed in that transition. It is also for us to power the drive for global free trade that promises new prosperity for all—not least those new members.

593
The countries of Europe must rise to these tasks, not turning inwards, not tinkering with institutions, but looking to the world beyond. We will continue to pursue that broader vision because—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131(2) (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [5th December] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.

Local Television
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
10 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: Television, in all its forms, is one of the United Kingdom's greatest assets, one of its life forces. Its creativity and artistry are evident, and its employment implications are evident and important to this country. However, television can never stand still. It must face the new challenges of the future.
I am afraid to say that, during the past 16 years or so, the Government have missed the opportunity to build upon our great tradition and ensure the future of television, by missing out a whole new layer of accessible programmes, skills and jobs—that new bottom layer of the television pyramid, local television.
There are immense opportunities for productive and profitable partnerships between local newspapers, radio groups, regional television groups, councils and local multimedia companies, but the Conservatives have lamely abdicated their responsibility during the past few years.
At no time have the Government created any incentives for innovation in that area. The Broadcasting Act 1990 removed any real requirements for cable companies to provide local services. Television under the Conservatives has been about the size of wallets, crafty deals, small fish lording it in a tiny and evaporating pond—limited takers, not risk takers. Nowhere is that more evident than in local television.
This is a great missed opportunity. Local television, by connecting citizens to one another, could regenerate a sense of community and shared identity. If combined with the new information communications technologies, it could enable a more responsive, interactive political system to develop at local level. It could create opportunities for new media companies operating at a local level, with the resulting benefits in terms of employment and training. It would help to broaden the involvement of citizens in their television, and challenge the dominance of London-based broadcasting elites.
Those are the opportunities. Cable television gives the chance to provide television to a smaller community of 2,000 people. I believe that there will be significant growth in cable subscribers, partly because local television will offer a unique selling point. Sadly, few cable companies currently provide any local content, despite the fact that the majority of their licences, signed before the Broadcasting Act, contained a commitment to provide local services.
It would be wrong to say that only cable can provide local television. For example, what happened to the visionary plans for channel 5 to have local opt-outs, as one of the original bidders intended? I am afraid that that was sacrificed at the altar of commercial television.
What about the potential of digital terrestrial to provide more local content? We are promised many dozens of channels, yet again there is a gaping hole in the Government's proposals to provide local services, rather than more of the same. In Bruce Springsteen's words, "two hundred channels and nothing to watch."
If the Government became involved and took action, the alternative could be a burst of creative variety in local programming. The need for such variety will not be

595
satisfied by the satellite television companies' introducing many dozens of channels—possibly more than 100. They do not wish to enter that market, and we shall have to look elsewhere for local provision.
I believe that cable companies should consider providing three types of local service—commercially run local television, which can chase a large audience with entertaining local programmes and news; public service-style television, seeking to fulfil a community remit and to address minority concerns; and "local access" television, produced by local people in conjunction with professionals. One channel could combine all three services, or could emphasise one or two.
Some channels have already been developed that claim local status. Channel 1, London's 24-hour news service, is an example, and Live TV plans opt-outs in cities such as Birmingham. A spine of centrally produced programming facilitates the development of local planning around it.
Cable has finally begun to recognise its own self-interest. It needs viewers as well as infrastructure. It already has a head start on British Telecommunications; it must make good use of that head start to ensure that it remains a competitor when BT is allowed into the entertainment market by the next Labour Government.
The, Minister may well argue that local television is not commercially viable. Part of the reason for that is the fact that the Government have already distorted the television market. There is a wide demand for locally produced programmes: opinion polls show that large majorities would prefer more localised television services, and both Live TV and Channel 1 have illustrated that the production costs of local television can be significantly reduced. That will ensure that local television does not run at a loss. Viewing will also grow rapidly as people come to value and exploit this new source of information and entertainment. Income from local advertising, as yet an untapped revenue source, will make local television profitable. If viewing is high enough, national advertising may also be secured.
Much as I value the high quality of television provided by BBC Midlands and Central Independent Television, how much better it would be if they complemented their services by developing Greater Nottingham Television, Derby City Television and Leicester Television. The opportunities are there, and the BBC and ITV companies can create a wider audience for local television by working in partnership. Perhaps for once they could work together to promote that aspect of television's development.
What about the role of the regulator, the Independent Television Commission? It has made some laudable efforts to get the cable companies moving, but its hands have been tied by an adequate governmental framework. It has only the "nuclear deterrent" of removing cable companies' franchises if they do not meet the commitment in their licences to provide local services.
It is possible that the ITC could impose a graduated set of penalties to enforce those commitments, and it should have the power to bar a franchisee from reapplying for a licence if it fails to honour them. The Broadcasting Act 1990 could be amended to ensure that the responsibility
596
to provide local television services is statutory. In addition, the ITC might have the power to allow an independent producer of local television to use the network if a franchise holder was slow to provide such services. Those measures might help the cable franchise to become viable, particularly when the monopoly ends and BT enters the entertainment market.
Like many other countries, Canada has had the nerve and vision to introduce a regulatory framework requiring cable companies to provide a local television service. Local television has blossomed as we hope it may blossom here. The results have been highly successful, and cable companies have recognised it as an opportunity to boost consumer loyalty and play a genuine community role. Local television can revel in Britain's cultural, economic, social and ethnic diversity, bringing a bright plurality of voices to the screen.
What about the potential for using local television to enhance democracy? Again, there is no current vision from the Government as to how to harness that power of decentralised television. Labour's plans to create regional chambers and to liberate local government will complement and support the growth of democratic initiatives using television. Perhaps regional chambers may be the body to license local television, as is the case with the Lander in Germany.
Other exciting possibilities exist. The BBC, Channel 4 and ITV could potentially provide content for local television. It may be necessary for them to consider their future by refocusing existing resources to provide this new service. If that were linked with a responsibility for developing community access, a radical development and redevelopment could take place of the public service role of the BBC and Channel 4.
British Telecom, once it begins to provide broadcast entertainment, could play an important role in encouraging such television. Government are desperately needed to encourage thinking in these sectors. The Government have abdicated that responsibility. We need a Government who will intervene and ensure that this sector is developed. Of course, there is an alternative. It is, I am afraid, to stare unblinkingly into the headlights of the British Sky Broadcasting satellite. I hope that people in British television do not believe that that is an appropriate alternative.
We must think about creating opportunities for community access. What is the best method to achieve that? Many colleges and universities already have media centres with a range of production equipment. Could those be developed as community broadcast centres? Cable companies, BT and broadcasters should now begin to think about how they could develop local community television co-ordinators with responsibility for encouraging participation in television by local people.
When I talk about local media, I think also about the new communication technology's potential to transform local democracy and accountability. Under the current system of representative democracy, individuals still have to lobby their political representatives using traditional methods such as writing a letter, signing a petition, contacting their representatives' office, arranging an appointment or attending their surgery. At best, that is often self-selecting and a one-way flow. Local television, allied to the information super-highway, can make politics a more widespread and two-way activity.

597
The new information and communication technologies afford the possibility of understanding and interacting directly with national, regional and local representatives and Parliaments. Just a couple of months ago, the Labour party conference had an experiment with a virtual electronic conference that was open to people throughout the world. Debates took place not only in the virtual conference hall, but in the virtual conference bar, which seemed equally popular. Debates took place between eminent people in the Labour party, passers-by, delegates and people in the United States of America, Japan and elsewhere in the world.
That could be repeated, not only in this place in a virtual Parliament, so that I could question—at his leisure, of course—the Minister or his staff more than once every three weeks and at any time of the day, but perhaps in councils, with virtual council meetings, where, at certain times of the month or week, councillors would be available to discuss and interact with one or many individual constituents, pressure groups or lobby groups.
Allied to local television, the role of such technology will help educate all of us in our politics, rather than being used as a way of finding an electronic snapshot of prejudice, a sort of electronic plebiscite, which is a danger of that technology. Every Member of Parliament could engage in this with their own home page on the World Wide Web, so that they could interact with their constituents at given times of the week.
Local television can help to regenerate a sense of community and a shared identity, while allowing everyone a voice. Those are just some of the possibilities that local television and multimedia provide to enhance democracy and reactivate civic culture. It is a possibility that is being denied to people by the Government's sloth in recent years.
I urge the Minister to take the opportunity offered in the forthcoming broadcasting Bill to explore some of the possibilities that exist. He may not feel that it is appropriate to include those matters in the Bill, but I hope that he agrees that it would be appropriate to have sensible and extensive debates in Committee on the matters I have raised.
After almost 60 years of television, we are still allowing a relatively small elite to control the entirety of broadcasting to and for all 58 million of us. It is time to broaden the involvement of citizens in their television, to counter the erosion of diversity that has undoubtedly taken place in our television in a search for mass audiences, and to begin a democratic process of retuning our rich broadcasting culture to the needs of the individual local television viewer.
10.16 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has been moved from his job as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on broadcasting and media matters. We had some extremely interesting debates in Committee, and his speech tonight showed that he is no less fertile in ideas than he was then. I hope that some of the ideas he mentioned can be considered in the broadcasting Bill that will be before us shortly.
598
I can promise the hon. Gentleman that if his stimulating ideas are raised in amendments to the Bill—which I am sure they will, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has influence with his hon. Friends, and no doubt with some of my hon. Friends who read his speech—we will debate them seriously. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman will not be present to debate them with us.
Because of the relative nearness of the debates on the Bill, I will have to be more constrained and circumscribed in my reply. I will not be able to pick up an idea, throw it around and discuss it in the rather carefree way that we used to do in Committee. As I have said, I hope that we will have a chance to return to these issues seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are introducing a Bill shortly on the developments in broadcasting. I should like to emphasise that the Government are committed to encouraging the development of technology and the expansion of the broadcast media, which in turn will increase consumer choice.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 was introduced precisely to encourage the expansion of the media, and to ensure that the high standards and quality that we have come to expect from our broadcasters in the United Kingdom were maintained as the market expanded. That Act, like the Bill to be published shortly, ensures that those with the expertise and market knowledge can develop their products in the most efficient way while ensuring that the consumer receives the quality of product that the consumer deserves and wants. Our commitment to regional and local programming is part of our wider commitment to maintain the standards of British broadcasting while expanding the choice of services for the viewer.
The future of local television is assured, and it is a sector that will grow with the continued expansion of cable and the arrival of digital broadcasting. Currently, the BBC and channel 3 companies have strong regional commitments. The BBC's commitment to producer choice is helping to move production away from a south-east dominance, and the regional nature of the channel 3 licences guarantees quality local television.
In 1994, the last year for which published figures are available, the Channel 3 licensees exceeded the Independent Television Commission licence requirements, and showed an average total of 180.53 hours of regional programming a week. The ITC is extremely vigilant in enforcing licence conditions, and will ensure that the level and quality of regional programming are maintained.
The swiftness with which the ITC responded in 1992 to concerns about Tyne-Tees's regional commitment, when it merged with Yorkshire, demonstrated that any changes in ownership do not affect the quality of local television. Local television has nothing to fear but much to gain from our policy on cross-media ownership.
The provision of local television services via cable is expanding quickly. From a slow start, the pace has quickened, and cable is now available to more than 5.5 million homes, with more than 20 per cent. of homes passed by cable choosing to subscribe. I understand that, in Nottingham, more than 25 per cent. of homes passed by cable have chosen to subscribe.
Although there are no obligations on cable operators to provide local services such as community channels, most companies that sought cable franchises under the 1990

599
Act committed themselves to developing some sort of local services. I understand that Diamond Cable in Nottingham provides a local text information service. The ITC has so far issued 95 licensable programme service licences to cable operators for local programming. That is very encouraging.
The expansion of cable and the arrival of digital transmission will take local television into a new era. Whereas the five main channels can never hope to provide much more than a regional service for local programmes, cable—and, more importantly, digital—will be able to provide truly local programmes, and, in due course, truly local services alongside its programming.
I share the hon. Gentleman's belief, which we have often discussed in Committee, in the social and economic worth of local television. I firmly believe that the Government's proposal for the introduction of digital terrestrial television will bring about increased opportunities, not only for local but for regional and minority interest television. Indeed, the introduction of digital terrestrial television will bring about many new opportunities for British manufacturing and the broadcasting industry as a whole.
The increased number of channels available will, in itself, provide increased opportunities for local and regional broadcasting. There will be at least 18 to 20 new television channels covering most of the United Kingdom. However, because digital technology offers broadcasters the potential to split channels, at times there may be double that number or even more. Multiplex operators will be looking for new programming of all types to fill their frequencies.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government's proposals, set out in the digital terrestrial broadcasting policy document, clearly stated that the ITC would judge applications on the variety of programme services that prospective multiplex providers intend to transmit. Multiplex providers, in putting together their proposals, will need to look to prospective broadcasters for different types of programme services appealing to a wide range of viewers' interests. I would expect the ITC to take full account of proposals for local, regional, community and special interest channels and programming as an important element in providing viewers with the appropriate level of variety.
The technological advantages of the digital medium will make it easier for broadcasters to split their frequency allocations into regional and local areas and to schedule programming with interwoven layers of national, regional and local broadcasting.
There will be a variety of patterns of programme provision, which will in turn give rise to new relationships between programme makers and broadcasters, and flexibility in contracting agreements, giving opportunities for smaller local broadcasters of programme makers to gain a foothold. Furthermore, I am assured that equipment associated with digital technology is less cumbersome and lends itself easily to programme making and transmission away from the large metropolitan studios. That represents an important advance for makers of local television programmes.
Against that background, the Government will be publishing their broadcasting Bill shortly. I should emphasise that their proposals for digital broadcasting, which will of course take account of points raised in
600
responses to consultation, will be enabling rather than prescriptive. As I have said, the Government give a very high priority to ensuring that the variety of services available to viewers of digital television is attractive and encourages viewers to invest in digital receivers.
The Government's other key priority in the early stages of digital terrestrial television must be to create a framework that will encourage the industry to invest in the infrastructure necessary to maximise coverage of new digital services as quickly as possible, and encourage the production and marketing of receivers at an affordable price. That is why applicants' proposals for investment in those areas, along with the variety of programming that they intend to offer, are the criteria on which the allocations of licences will be determined.
Given that digital terrestrial television, while undoubtedly a marvellous opportunity, is also a high-risk venture, it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to place other burdens and restrictions on multiplex providers and broadcasters.
Specifically, it would not be reasonable to place on licensees a levy intended to finance subsidies for local television, as some, I am sure with the best of motives, have suggested. To do so could deter investment in digital terrestrial television. That in turn might permanently reduce or remove the scope for new services, whether national, regional or local. As I hope I have made clear, the Government's proposals are aimed precisely at maximising the scope for such new services, whether they are provided by existing or new broadcasters.
I should like to say something about media ownership.
Mr. Allen: Before the Minister moves on, is he prepared to go to see one or two examples of local television that already exist—there are a number around the country—before the broadcasting Bill goes into Committee? I am sure that, if he has not already seen such examples, he would find it very interesting and helpful. Will he make a particular point of going to see the BT experiment in and around Ipswich with about 5,000 homes, where, along with many other services, BT is piping into those homes a local community access channel?
Mr. Sproat: Yes, I will. I think that that is an extremely interesting idea. The only caveat that would I add—it is a very practical one—is that, before I get embedded in the broadcasting Bill, I am trying to sort out various aspects of arts, public libraries, museums, galleries and heaven knows what else. But I would very much like to try to do just what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government set out in May their proposals on media ownership. We asked the industry and the wider community to comment on what we said. We have received many responses, including several from companies in the smaller ITV regions, and they have all been taken into account in framing the Bill. Many stressed the importance of regional programming and production. Indeed, regionality is seen as the particular strength of the ITV network. Our media-ownership proposals included measures to preserve diversity at local levels by setting thresholds for local cross-media ownership.
I should add that requirements relating to regional programming and production are enshrined in the licence conditions of channel 3 companies. We have no intention

601
of removing those requirements. As I said earlier, all the ITV companies, including those where consolidation has taken place, exceeded their regional programming and regional production requirements.
I shall finish with a little present for the hon. Gentleman, which I hope will be in order. I remind the House, in case the hon. Gentleman did not already know, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage today announced an additional digital radio frequency—a multiplex—that will be assigned to local services.
The House will remember that in August the Government published proposals and invited views from the radio industry about digital terrestrial broadcasting.
Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sproat: I have only one minute.
602
The proposals were aimed at ensuring that listeners are offered more choice of quality radio services. The Government received more than 100 responses, and have given each of them very careful consideration in the preparation of the forthcoming broadcasting Bill. In particular, we invited views on whether spare frequency should be used for national or local radio stations.
I am therefore very pleased to confirm that additional digital frequencies will be assigned to independent local radio services in areas where the need is greatest. That is especially important for urban areas such as Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff, London of course, and, who knows, perhaps Nottingham.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Lorries
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many 41-tonne lorries have been licensed since 1 April. [3369]

  Mr. Norris
  The information specifically requested is not available. The closest equivalent information is that a total of 241 lorries with maximum revenue weight over 40 tonnes but not over 44 tonnes have been newly registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, in the period from 1 April to 30 September 1995.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the use of 41-tonne lorries on road bridges; and how many bridges currently need to be strengthened. [3371]

  Mr. Watts
  No assessment has been made of the use of 41-tonne lorries.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3417]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 6 December, column 277.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3418]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Track Access Grant
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list details of the outstanding track access grant applications before him and state in respect of each(a) the date received and (b) when he expects to give his decision. [4076]

  Mr. Watts
  There are eight track access grant applications currently under consideration. They were received between November 1994 and July 1995. The details are commercially confidential.

  We are seeking further material information from the applicants.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the
  322
  last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4246]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4273]

  Mr. Norris
  Seven including the mobile telephones fitted in the four official cars used by Ministers.

  North-West Regional Railways Ltd.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the stations leased by other operators from which North West Regional Railways Ltd. is to buy access, indicating the annual cost. [3951]

  Mr. Watts
  North West Regional Railways purchases access from other operators at the following stations:

  Station

  Operator

  Appleby

  Regional Railways North-East

  Armathwaite

  Regional Railways North-East

  Bidston

  Mersey Electrics

  Birmingham International

  Inter City West Coast

  Birmingham New Street

  Railtrack

  Carlisle

  Inter City West Coast

  Crewe

  Inter City West Coast

  Deighton

  Regional Railways North-East

  Dent

  Regional Railways North-East

  Ellesmere Port

  Mersey Electrics

  Etruria

  Regional Railways Central

  Garsdale

  Regional Railways North-East

  Hellifield

  Regional Railways North-East

  Horton in Ribblesdale

  Regional Railways North-East

  Huddersfield

  Regional Railways North-East

  Hunts Cross

  Mersey Electrics

  Kidsgrove

  Regional Railways Central

  Kirby

  Mersey Electrics

  Kirkby Stephen

  Regional Railways North-East

  Lancaster

  Inter City West Coast

  Langwathby

  Regional Railways North-East

  Lazonby

  Regional Railways North-East

  Littleborough

  Regional Railways North-East

  Longport

  Regional Railways Central

  Macclesfield

  Inter City West Coast

  Manchester Piccadilly

  Railtrack

  Mirfield

  Regional Railways North-East

  Ormskirk

  Mersey Electrics

  Oxenholme

  Inter City West Coast

  Preston

  Inter City West Coast

  Ribblehead

  Regional Railways North-East

  Settle

  Regional Railways North-East

  Sheffield

  Inter City Midland Main Line

  Smithy Bridge

  Regional Railways North-East

  Southport

  Mersey Electrics

  Stafford

  Inter City West Coast

  Stockport

  Inter City West Coast

  Stoke on Trent

  Inter City West Coast

  Todmorden

  Regional Railways North-East

  Wakefield Kirkgate

  Regional Railways North-East

  Wakefield Westgate

  Inter City East Coast

  Walsden

  Regional Railways North-East

  Warrington Bank Quay

  Inter City West Coast

  Wigan North Western

  Inter City West Coast

  Wolverhampton

  Inter City West Coast

  Details of individual operators' station leasing charges are commercially confidential.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Charter of Court Users
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints he has received against judges(a) in total and (b) for not complying with the charter for court users in the last five years in (i) the north-west as a whole and (ii) in the Merseyside area; and if he will make a statement. [3975]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This information is not available in the form requested. Records relating to complaints received centrally about the personal conduct of judges have been kept only since March 1992. Since that date, 62 such complaints regarding judges sitting on the northern circuit have been received. Information on complaints relating to judicial decisions is held by the Court Service, which has received centrally 297 such complaints since it was established on 1 April 1995. Information on complaints relating to judicial decisions broken down on a regional basis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The charter for court users, which came into effect on 1 September 1995, sets out the standards court users can expect from the administration of the Court Service. It does not therefore apply to the work of the judiciary.

  November 1992

  November 1995

  Judiciary

  Total number of judiciary

  Ethnic minority origin

  Total number of judiciary

  Ethnic minority origin

  Full-time Judiciary

  High Court Judges

  82

  0

  95

  0

  Circuit Judges

  480

  3

  514

  5

  District Judges

  257

  0

  339

  2

  Part-time Judiciary

  Recorders

  784

  7

  897

  13

  Assistant Recorders

  475

  8

  341

  9

  Deputy District Judges

  —

  —

  718

  11

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  —

  —

  92

  1

  Acting Stipendiary Magistrates

  —

  —

  87

  3

  Full-time Chairmen of Industrial Tribunals

  —

  —

  81

  2

  Part-time Chairmen of Social Security

  —

  —

  178

  5

  Full-time Chairmen of Social Security Appeals Tribunals

  —

  —

  45

  1

  Part-time Chairmen of Social Security Appeals Tribunal

  —

  —

  458

  10

  Magistrates Courts
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total staff establishment of magistrates courts in England and Wales by grade; and how many(a) in total and (b) in each grade were from an ethnic minority in (i) 1989 and (ii) 1995. [3614]

  Total staff by grade by ethnic origin

  Ethnic origin

  Grade

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Unknown

  Total

  Administrative division

  4,080

  165

  200

  4,445

  Clerical Division

  940

  79

  246

  1,265

  Committee Secretariat

  205

  3

  12

  220

  Court Clerks Division

  1,370

  68

  73

  1,511

  Justices' Clerks

  200

  0

  5

  205

  324
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are made to ensure that judges comply with the charter for court users. [3976]

  Mr. Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Eddie Loyden, dated 7 December 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the judiciary and the Charter for Court Users.The Charter for Court Users sets out the standards court users can expect from the administration of the Court Service. It does not therefore apply to the work of the judiciary.

  Judiciary (Ethnic Origin)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of the judiciary in England and Wales were from an ethnic minority in(a) 1989 and (b) 1995. [3652]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The ethnic origin of candidates for judicial appointment was not collected prior to autumn 1991, so the available information may not be complete. There are no readily available records for 1989. The earliest readily available and current figures for full-time and part-time judiciary are set out in the table.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Returns from 104 of the 105 magistrates courts committees in England and Wales showed that in 1995 there was a total of 11,083 staff, of whom 436 declared they were from an ethnic minority. A breakdown by grade is in the table.

  There are no figures available for 1989. There was no requirement to keep such figures at that time.
  325

  Total staff by grade by ethnic origin

  Ethnic origin

  Grade

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Unknown

  Total

  Other

  597

  54

  70

  721

  Deputy Justices' Clerks Division

  325

  17

  28

  370

  Principle Admin Division

  604

  17

  35

  656

  Trainee Court Clerks Division

  203

  12

  6

  221

  Ushers

  1,374

  21

  75

  1,470

  Total

  9,898

  436

  750

  11,084

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3228]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 December. [3230]

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

  Australian Aboriginal Artifacts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have received since 1980 for assistance from the Government of Australia or the state government of Western Australia or any of their agencies, in respect of the alleged removal, contrary to Australian law, of aboriginal artifacts from or through the Broome area of Western Australia; what action was subsequently taken in response to each request; and if he will make a statement. [4180]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none. Further examination of the government archives could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Alfred Hartmann
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, on what occasion and for what purpose, he or his predecessor Baroness Thatcher has met Dr. Alfred Hartmann. [4528]

  The Prime Minister
  I do not recall having met Dr. Hartmann, nor am I aware of any meeting between my predecessor and Dr. Hartmann.

  Ministers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the number of Ministers by rank in each Department of State, excluding law officers; and if he will provide the corresponding figures for the outgoing Government in 1965. [4751]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter of public record.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Ministers are in the Department of Trade and Industry now and how many were in the then Board of Trade in 1965; what are the numbers of officials in the Department by rank from assistant secretary upwards in 1979 and at
  326
  the present time; and what plans he has for reducing the number of Ministers in the Department. [4752]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter of public record. I have no intention of reducing the number of Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those occasions on which his predecessor notified the Crown between 1979 and 1990 of her intention to visit Switzerland. [4560]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with "Questions of Procedures for Ministers", it is normal practice for all Cabinet Ministers to notify the Crown of their intention to make an official foreign visit.

TREASURY

  Taxation (Cigarettes)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax revenues raised in each of the last five years from the illegal sale of cigarettes to children. [3776]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: Data on smoking prevalence among schoolchildren are available from surveys conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in four years since 1990. The sample size for each survey is very small, so estimates for individual years are considered unreliable. Combining the results of the four surveys gives a best estimate of the order of £100 million raised per year in excise duty and VAT from sales of cigarettes to children under 16 or smoked by such children but purchased legally by others.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3954]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  For(a) consultants and (b) outside organisations, those employed by the Department since 1992 with total contract value which are given in a table which I am placing in the Members' Library. To obtain information before 1992 on actual payments made and to give the purpose of employment in each case would entail disproportionate cost.
  327
  With regard to (c), the total number of staff employed in the Treasury and their cost can be found in the civil service staff in post summary tables which are also available in the Library. It would entail disproportionate cost to list the purposes of employment, but staff are employed to meet the aim and objectives of the Treasury. These are set out in the departmental report which is in the Library.

  Tax Legislation (Revision)
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation he plans in respect of his proposed revision of the wording of the technical tax law; and if this review will cover all existing tax laws. [3684]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]: The proposal to rewrite existing tax legislation, which my right hon. and learned Friend announced in his Budget, would proceed on the basis of full consultation with the representative bodies and taxpayers generally. It would cover most of the primary legislation on Inland Revenue taxes.

  Further details of this rewritten proposal will be given in the Inland Revenue's report under section 160 of the Finance Act 1995, which we hope to lay before Parliament on 12 December 1995, and in its background paper that will be published on the same day.

  Earnings
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of workers on adult rates currently earn less than(a) £2.50, (b) £3, (c) £3.50, (d) £4, (e) £4.50 (f) £5, (g) £5.50 and (h) more than £6 per hour, including and excluding overtime in (i) the east midlands and (ii) the United Kingdom. [4072]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: Information available from the new earnings survey is provided in the table.

  Hourly earnings, all employees on adult rates pay not affected by absence: April 1995

  Percentage earning

  East Midlands

  Great Britain

  Including overtime

  <£2.50

  1.5

  1.6

  <£3.00

  3.6

  3.3

  <£3.50

  10.2

  8.7

  <£4.00

  19.0

  15.8

  <£4.50

  27.5

  23.1

  <£5.00

  35.0

  30.4

  <£5.50

  43.2

  37.7

  <£6.00

  49.1

  55.4

  Excluding overtime

  <£2.50

  1.6

  1.6

  <£3.00

  3.8

  3.4

  <£3.50

  10.7

  9.1

  <£4.00

  19.9

  16.5

  <£4.50

  29.0

  24.2

  <£5.00

  36.4

  31.4

  <£5.50

  44.6

  38.8

  <£6.00

  47.7

  54.3

  Valuation Office (Stockport)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide information on who has been consulted about the proposed closure of the valuation office in Stockport; [4286]

  (2) when he expects the consultation on the proposed closure of the valuation office in Stockport to be completed; [4284]

  (3) if he will make available the responses to the consultation on the proposed closure of the valuation office in Stockport. [4285]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: Consultation has recently commenced with members of staff and their trades unions and will also be conducted with national representatives of the valuation profession and other bodies with an interest in the future of the Valuation Office review.

  Consultation is expected to be completed by summer 1996 and the outcome announced in due course.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4250]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: A total of four mobile telephones belonging to Treasury Ministers have been cloned during the past 12 months of which two were cloned within the last six months. No Treasury Ministers' mobile telephones were cloned beyond 12 months ago. The Chief Secretary has had his mobile telephones cloned three times and the Economic Secretary once.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4249]

  Mrs. Knight
  There are 12 mobile telephones available for use by Treasury Ministers and their private offices.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3422]

  Mr. Jack
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative does not result in changes to the policy of the Government on the PFI. Agreed schemes do, however, represent the application of PFI policy and offer us the opportunity to refine further the process of implementation. The lessons so far are most recently set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by HM Treasury and the private finance panel, and a copy has been placed in the Members' Library.
  329
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3421]

  Mr. Jack
  Information on forward commitments, including those in respect of schemes under the private finance initiative, is held by Departments. Payments for service procurement through PFI schemes are taken into account as part of Departments' current costs in their overall spending plans; those for the next three years are published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report, 1996–97", laid before Parliament on 28 November 1995.

  Church Commissioners' Accounts
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the instructions which have been given to Binder Hamlyn on the nature and the manner of the audit it should carry out on the Church Commissioners' accounts. [4589]

  Mr. Jack
  The letter of engagement between Binder Hamlyn and the Church Commissioners has not yet been finalised, but I will write to the hon. Member once this has been done and the Treasury has approved the arrangements.

  Public Sector Financial Balances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the predicted and actual public sector financial deficit or surplus for each financial year since 1979. [4329]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Forecasts of the public sector financial balances are published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Outturns of the public sector financial balance are available from the Central Statistical Office databank, series AABE.

  Forecast and outturn figures for the public sector financial balance

  £ billion

  Source

  Period

  Forecast

  Outturn

  FSBR June 1979

  1979–80

  –7.2

  –8.2

  FSBR March 1980

  1980–81

  –6.9

  –11.8

  FSBR March 1981

  1981–82

  –6.3

  –5.5

  FSBR March 1982

  1982–83

  –6.6

  –8.7

  FSBR March 1983

  1983–84

  –8.9

  –11.7

  FSBR March 1984

  1984–85

  –8.5

  –13.7

  FSBR March 1985

  1985–86

  –9.8

  –8.1

  FSBR March 1986

  1986–87

  –12.2

  –8.2

  FSBR March 1987

  1987–88

  –9.4

  –1.9

  FSBR March 1988

  1988–89

  –1.4

  8.3

  FSBR March 1989

  1989–90

  7.3

  2.4

  FSBR March 1990

  1990–91

  2.6

  –3.1

  FSBR March 1991

  1991–92

  –11.3

  –18.6

  FSBR March 1992

  1992–93

  –30.9

  –45.0

  FSBR March 1993

  1993–94

  –55.2

  –49.9

  FSBR November 1989

  1994–95

  –41.3

  –40.5

  FSBR November 1994

  1996–96

  1–25.6

  —

  FSBR November 1995

  1996–97

  –25.4

  —

  1 Published in the Revised Tables, January 1995, following the decision to leave the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power at 8 per cent., and the further Budget measures announced on 8 December 1994.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be published; and if he will make available to hon. Members the customary notes on the Bill's clauses. [5078]

  Mr. Jack
  The Finance Bill will be published on Thursday 4 January 1996. The notes on the Bill's clauses will be placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of the House that day. In addition, the Treasury will be making the notes available to the public.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Clock Tower
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what estimate has been made of the angle at which the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster varies from the perpendicular; and what variation has occurred over the last 20 years. [3797]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The Accommodation and Works Committee has a specialist adviser on geotechnical engineering whose brief includes advising the Committee on the adequacy of London Underground's arrangements to prevent damage to the Palace of Westminster and other parliamentary buildings during the construction of Westminster underground station and the Jubilee line extension. The Parliamentary Works Directorate also employs an independent firm of surveyors to monitor many movements of the Clock Tower.

  The advice from both these sources is that London Underground Ltd., is taking appropriate and sufficient measures to control any damaging movements caused by excavation work for the Jubilee line extension project. The clock tower currently slopes from the vertical by approximately 1 in 4,000 and is affected by Thames tidal movement and changes in ambient temperature.

  Video Conferencing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment has been made or is planned in respect of possible reduction of the costs of overseas 'visits by the Select Committees through the use of video conferenicng. [4179]

  Mr. Beith
  Select Committees have used video conferencing as a means of gathering evidence on two occasions on an experimental basis. The matter has already been reported on by the Procedure Committee and the arrangements for, and cost of, video conferencing as a means of taking evidence are currently under review by the Liaison Committee; other domestic Committees may wish to be consulted. It is therefore too early to judge what part video conferencing could play in evidence gathering by Select Committees or any effects which its adoption might have on expenditure on overseas visits.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Space Policy
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the proposal made at the United Kingdom space policy seminar at Surrey university in September for publication of a space policy document. [4802]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Yesterday I issued a discussion document on United Kingdom space policy and I am inviting comments.

  The documents examines UK strengths and opportunities in space science, telecommunications, earth observation and launchers. It looks at projects in the European Space Agency and other international organisations. My aim is to bring together the results of this consultation exercise, with more detailed work being carried out at the British national space centre in discussion with industry and the academic world, in the form of a forward plan for UK involvement in space activities by next summer.

  Copies of the discussion document are being placed in the Library of the House and I am sending a copy to each participant at the Surrey seminar.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3419]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Although my Department has a number of PFI projects under consideration, none has been finally agreed and no revenue commitments have been made.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3420]

  Mr. Taylor
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative within my Department will not result in changes to policy on the PFI, which have been set out by the Government. Those schemes that have been agreed, however, represent the application of PFI policy and the lessons learned are set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by HM Treasury and the private finance panel, and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Anti-tank Mines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what export control procedures apply to (i) the export of anti-tank mines without self-destruct mechanism or (ii) the export of remote delivery systems for anti-tank mines. [4324]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The export of all anti-tank mines and related equipment and accessories is controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order. Such goods cannot be exported without a licence from the Department of Trade and Industry issued after consultation within Government. Any applications for an export licence for such equipment 332
  would be considered against strict established criteria on a case-by-case basis in line with our international commitments.

  Libya (UN Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact on British(a) trade and (b) industry of the United Nations sanctions against Libya; and if he will place in the Library the information passed by his Department relating to evasion of sanctions by Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, South Korea and Spain. [2890]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The United Nations sanctions against Libya are selective. They prohibit in particular supply and export of arms, aviation supplies and certain oil industry equipment in which the United Kingdom is strongly competitive. It is not possible to say what is the precise effect of the sanctions on UK trade and industry, but one sign of the resilience of our trading position is that exports to Libya in 1995 will exceed £200 million.

  My Department has passed no information to the UN sanctions committee, the body responsible for co-ordinating matters including evasion of sanctions.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4267]

  Mr. Lang
  There are 14 mobile telephones available in the DTI for the use of Ministers and their private offices. In addition, each ministerial car is fitted with a cellular telephone.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the policy of his Department in respect of making grants available to companies where directors have had previous bankruptcies. [2304]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: Where a director of a company applying for a grant from the Department is known to have previously been bankrupt but is now discharged or has been given permission by the bankruptcy court to be a director, this would not automatically rule out acceptance of the grant application but it is a factor that would be taken into account in considering the viability and probity of the applicant company. Where a director was found to be an undischarged bankrupt who was not entitled to be a director of a company, this would be grounds for considering prosecution of the director and would be likely to lead to rejection of the company's grant application.

  Rom Data Corporation
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the purpose of the meeting between an official of his Department and Mr. Brad Shephard on 29 October 1993; and if he will make a statement about the outcome of this meeting; [2384]
  333
  (2) by which hon. Members, and on what dates, his Department was contacted about the Rom Data Corporation, Falmouth; [2299]

  (3) if he will make a statement about the results of his inquiries into the background of the directors of the Rom Data Corporation, Falmouth, before he made a grant to them; and if those inquiries revealed evidence of former bankruptcies of any of the directors; [2301]

  (4) what information about the financial history of Mr. John Dawson was revealed by his inquiries into the directors of the Rom Data Corporation; [2305]

  (5) what action he has taken against the directors of the Rom Data Corporation, Falmouth; and if he will make a statement. [2300]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: As indicated in my reply of 7 November 1995, Official Report, column 711, the Department is currently conducting inquiries into the circumstances of the regional selective assistance given to the Rom Data Corporation. I will report when these are completed.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Macshane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of new businesses started up by year and region since 1990. [4709]

  Mr. Page
  The best indicator of regional trends in business start-ups is given by figures on VAT registrations. Annual numbers of registrations for 1990 to 1994 are given in the table.

  VAT registrations 1990–94

  Thousands

  Region

  1990

  11991

  1992

  21993

  21994

  South East

  95.7

  81.9

  74.2

  79.1

  78.9

  East Anglia

  8.5

  7.5

  6.4

  6.8

  6.6

  South West

  20.2

  17.4

  15.6

  15.9

  15.7

  West Midlands

  19.1

  16.6

  15.8

  15.6

  15.5

  East Midlands

  15.4

  13.5

  12.1

  12.3

  12.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17.1

  15.1

  13.6

  13.6

  13.3

  North West

  24.0

  21.0

  19.2

  17.7

  17.4

  North

  8.3

  6.9

  6.2

  6.3

  6.4

  Wales

  10.2

  8.4

  7.5

  7.2

  7.2

  Scotland

  16.3

  13.9

  12.7

  12.6

  12.8

  Northern Ireland

  4.3

  3.7

  3.7

  4.0

  3.9

  United Kingdom

  239

  206

  187

  191

  190

  Notes:

  1 Includes an adjustment for effect of change in the VAT threshold in the 1991 budget.

  2 Includes an adjustment for effect of change in the VAT threshold in the November 1993 budget.

  Following the threshold change in 1991, figures for 1992 to 1994 are not comparable with the figures for earlier years.

  ISCT Ltd.
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiry his Department has initiated or plans concerning the activities of any directors of the Ferranti-ISC subsidiary ISCT Ltd.; and what action his Department has taken as a result. [5619]
  334
  Mr. Oppenheim
  ISC Technologies Ltd. went into administrative receivership on 1 December 1993. Returns under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 were submitted by the administrative receivers on 25 May 1994.

  No disqualification proceedings or other action has been taken or is proposed by the Department on present information.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to initiate disqualification proceedings against former directors of the Ferranti-ISC subsidiary ISCT Ltd. through which the fraud against that parent company was perpetrated; and if he will make a statement. [4358]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: ISC Technologies Ltd. went into administrative receivership on 1 December 1993. Returns under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 were submitted by the administrative receivers on 25 May 1994.

  No disqualification proceedings have been taken or are proposed by the Department.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what inquiries he has initiated regarding the position of beneficiaries of the pension fund of the former Ferranti-ISC fund; what action he has taken to protect the position of the beneficiaries; and if he will make a statement. [4359]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The assets of the Ferranti-ISC group of companies are being dealt with by joint administrative receivers, without the involvement of the Department, who report that after payment in full of the preferential creditors and the banks' claims as first ranking secured creditors, a payment to the pension fund on account of its second ranking secured claim for £15 million may be possible. The major part of the pension fund is not affected by the receivership and is protected for its beneficiaries.

  Newerthill
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations or inquiries he has received from the Government of Australia or any of its agencies, or from any Australian state authority or agency about the activities of the United Kingdom registered company Newerthill or any of its subsidiaries; and if he will make a statement. [4245]

  Mr. Nelson
  There is no United Kingdom registered company with the name Newerthill. We have received no representation or inquiries about Newerthill or any other similarly named company to which the question might possibly relate.

  Exports (Iraq)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what inquiries he has caused to he made into whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department issued guarantees to financial institutions resident in the United Kingdom possibly involved in financial trade with Iraq
  335
  contrary to the Government's guidelines; what were the results of such inquiries; and what subsequent action he has taken or proposes to take. [4244]

  Mr. Nelson
  I know of no such cases.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons he does not publish figures for United Kingdom share of main manufacturing countries exports in table D1 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistic", and if he will(a) publish up to date figures in the Official Report and (b) include the figures in future editions of the MRETS.

  Mr. John M Taylor
  The series were temproarily discontinued when MRETS was suspended, following introduction of Intrastate, during 1993–94. With the rebasing of United Kingdom volume series using 1990 weights it is necessary to rebase the volume of manufactured exports for the main manufacturing countries as a whole. This work is continuing and the series will be reinstated as soon as possible.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the share of the domestic market taken by(a) imported manufactured goods and (b) imported services for each year since 1975. [4401]

  Mr. Nelson
  Consistent information for each year since 1975 is not available. The following estimates are derived from input-output tables which were published every five years prior to 1989.

  Imports as a percentage of home demand

  Year

  Manufacturing industry

  Services

  1974

  23.7

  7.2

  1979

  25.3

  6.1

  1984

  31.7

  6.2

  1989

  36.0

  3.9

  1990

  36.4

  3.7

  1991

  35.8

  3.4

  1992

  37.6

  3.3

  1993

  40.4

  3.3

  The 1992 standard industrial classification has changed the definition of manufacturing industry. The new definition includes the manufacture of coke ovens, mineral oil processing and nuclear fuel processing and excludes mining and quarrying of materials other than coal. The table takes account of these major changes but there may still be some definitional differences between 1992 and earlier figures.

  The figures only include direct trade. Services provided locally as a result of overseas direct investment are not included in these figures.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations led him to cease publication of figures for United Kingdom export unit values for manufactures which have been published in table 2.15 of "Economic Trends" after the third quarter of 1994. [4557]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The publication of UK export unit values of manufactures has not been discontinued. Table 2.15 of the November "Economic Trends" contains figures up to the first quarter of 1995, the latest quarter 336
  for which unit value indices based on $US denominated exports are available from the International Monetary Fund.

  Redundancies
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for redundancies in his Department. [3708]

  Mr. Lang
  The outcome of the public expenditure survey for the running costs of my Department means that to help to achieve the required rundown in staff numbers a voluntary early retirement-severance scheme is being launched immediately.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the(a) written and (b) oral evidence given by Her Majesty's Government to the International Court of Justice in respect of the legality of nuclear weapons. [3986]

  Mr. David Davis
  The International Court of Justice decided on 30 October that submissions in respect of the nuclear weapons advisory opinions should be open to the public. Accordingly, copies of our written and oral statements have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 4 and 5 December. [5284]

  Mr. David Davis
  The A points listed in document 12202/95—which will be deposited in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is available—were adopted except for item 24 which was withdrawn by presidency.

  The Council took note of the European Parliament resolutions in document 11507/95 PE-RE-79. A copy of this document will be deposited in the Libraries of the House as soon as it is available.

  The Council agreed that the presidency should write to the Prime Minister of Estonia confirming receipt of that country's application for membership of the European Union.

  The Council discussed preparations for the European Council at Madrid.

  The Council agreed that the conference on economic assistance to the Palestinians should be postponed to 9 January.

  The Council discussed the draft MEDA regulation, covering aid to countries in the Mediterranean region.

  The Commission presented a recommendation for a Council decision on renewal of the San Jose dialogue between the EU and central America. This was remitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further discussion.
  337
  The Council confirmed that the Commission should continue to negotiate a new agreement with Switzerland on the basis of its existing mandate.

  The Council adopted conclusions on former Yugoslavia and agreed on the appointment of a deputy to Mr. Bildt in Sarajevo. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Ministers of France and of Germany briefed the Council on the forthcoming London, Paris and Bonn conferences.

  The Council adopted a further common position on Nigeria, covering measures additional to those in the common position of 20 November. The new common position provides for further visa restrictions, the expulsion of military personnel in Nigerian diplomatic missions in the EU and interruption of sporting contacts. The Council undertook to consider further measures in the absence of progress in Nigeria.

  The Council discussed a draft mandate for a trade and co-operation agreement with South Africa.

  The Council discussed the draft new technical assistance to the Commmonwealth of Independent States—TACIS—regulation but agreed to defer further consideration until the Italian presidency.

  The Council agreed a position paper on the March 1996 Asia/Europe meeting to be used as a basis for EU discussion with the Asian side in the run-up to the meeting.

  The Council approved conclusions endorsing the broad lines of the Commission's communication on long-term relations between the EU and China.

  The Council gave its political approval, by qualified majority, to a deal negotiated with the US, Canada and Australia on compensation—as required by article XXIV.6—of the general agreement on tariffs and trade for tariff increases resulting from EU enlargement.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3395]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 7 November 1995,Official Report, column 694.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3396]

  Mr. Hanley
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative does not result in changes to the policy of the Government on the PFI. Agreed schemes do, however, represent the application of PFI policy and offer us the opportunity further to refine the process of implementation. The lessons learned are set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by HM Treasury and the private finance panel, and a copy is available in the Members' Library.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4265]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department has four mobile telephones and four car telephones exclusively for the use of Ministers.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4266]

  Mr. Hanley
  The then Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham, (Mr. Hogg), has his car telephone cloned twice: in October 1994 and June 1995. New numbers were allocated on both occasions.

  A programme is under way to replace Ministers' analogue telephones with digital units which will reduce the risk of cloning.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the change in real terms since 1994–95 to his Office's funding to the BBC World Service. [4739]

  Mr. Hanley
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office funding to the BBC World Service through grant in aid decreased in real terms by 0.67 per cent. between 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what restrictions apply to the award of sponsorship rights to potential participants in any use of the private finance initiative of the BBC World Service; [4756]

  (2) what plans he has to allow the BBC World Service to take (a) advertising or (b) finance from overseas Governments or agencies. [4757]

  Mr. Hanley
  Under the terms of its current licence and agreement, the BBC is prohibited from broadcasting sponsored programmes. It would also need to seek agreement to accept advertising from any source or take finance from overseas Governments or agencies. Subject to the overriding requirements of safeguarding its impartiality, we would look at any proposals the World Service might make constructively, bearing in mind the increasing use of local rebroadcasting partnerships to reach audiences more effectively.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the BBC World Service's capital budget the reduction in funding announced on 28 November represents. [4755]

  Mr. Hanley
  The reduction in funding for 1996–97 amounts to 19.3 per cent. of the World Service's capital budget, but this takes no account of the opportunities presented by the private finance initiative.
  339
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the BBC World Service as to which transmitters will be affected by the reduction in the funding of the BBC World Service; and to what extent; [4763]

  (2) to what extent the private finance initiative can be applied to overseas projects of the BBC World Service; [4759]

  (3) what consultations he has had about the consequences of the reduction in the BBC World Service's budget; [4754]

  (4) what monitoring he has carried out as to the effect on programme services of the reduction in funding to the BBC World Service; with what result; and if he will make a statement; [4762]

  (5) if the private finance initiative will be applied to improvements in existing projects of the BBC World Service; [4758]

  (6) what recommendations he has made to the BBC World Service as to the areas of transmission in which economies should be made. [4760]

  Mr. Hanley
  We hold regular discussions with the BBC World Service, about its plans and priorities. I shall be meeting the managing director of the World Service shortly. Detailed talks on funding for the next three-year period will start in the New Year.

  It is for the World Service to judge the best deployment of transmitters. Audibility has been vastly improved as a result of a £166 million investment programme. A further new relay station is being built in Thailand at a cost of £29 million.

  The private finance initiative offers the World Service opportunity to involve private sector finance and expertise and may, in principle, be applied to projects overseas as well as in the United Kingdom. Projects which are already contractually committed are not affected.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the BBC World Service budget for transmitters and satellite distribution is already contractually committed. [4761]

  Mr. Hanley
  Over 70 per cent. of the BBC World Service's capital budget for 1995–96, and all of the operating budget line, for transmitter and satellite distribution is already contractually committed.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that no training will be offered by the United Kingdom to Guatemalan police officers until the peace process has been fully implemented in Guatemala. [4520]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No. Our limited assistance to the Guatemalan police is designed to encourage high standards, including proper respect for human rights.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Guatemalan Government about the human rights situation in Guatemala with particular reference to 340
  the latest report of the United Nations human rights verification mission, MINUGUA. [4521]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  As I informed the House on 19 October,Official Report, columns 305–306, the British ambassador in Guatemala takes every appropriate opportunity to express to the authorities our concerns about human rights abuses, including problems identified in MINUGUA's third report to the UN Secretary-General.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Guatemalan Government to ensure that the trial of the Guatemalan soldiers accused of the massacre of former refugees in Xaman on 5 October is carried out in a fair and proper judicial manner. [4522]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  In its statement on 12 October the European Union called for the punishment of those guilty of the massacre and expressed support for the measures announced by President de Leon Carpio to deal with the incident. The Guatemalan authorities are well aware of the need for a proper trial of those accused.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current status of the economy of each member state of the EC in relation to each of the convergence criteria for European monetary union in the Maastricht treaty. [160]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The question of which countries fulfil the necessary conditions for adoption of the single currency will be decided by the Council, meeting in the form of Heads of State or of Government. The latest Commission forecasts, released on 22 November 1995, provide information on the current status of each member state. The forecasts are available in the House of Commons Library.

DEFENCE

  Anti-tank Mines
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of anti-tank mines(a) possessed by or (b) in the process of being procured by the United Kingdom armed forces have self-destruct mechanisms. [4315]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  All anti-tank mines in service with the multiple launch rocket system phase II and JP233 will self-destruct after a pre-set time, once deployed. No other in-service anti-tank mines have self-destruct mechanisms. It is our established policy, for security reasons, not to reveal information relating to stock levels of munitions held.

  I recently announced on 29 November 1995, Official Report, column 768, our intention to purchase a vehicle-launched scatterable mine system. All the mines to be procured for VLSMS will have a self-destruct mechanism. We are currently procuring any other anti-tank mines.
  341
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the UK possess the means remotely to deliver anti-tank mines; and if the MLRS system is equipped remotely to deliver anti-tank mines. [4325]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Yes. Both the multiple launch rocket system phase II and JP233 are capable of delivering anti-tank mines remotely. I recently announced on 29 November 1995,Official Report, column 768, our intention to purchase a vehicle-launched scatterable mine system, which will also be capable of delivering anti-tank mines remotely. All these systems utilise mines which self-destruct after a short laid life.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3818]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 7 November 1995, Official Report, column 666.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3414]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government's defence policy is as stated in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", Cm 2800.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3413]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 7 November,Official Report, column 666.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3823]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: Capital expenditure on the PFI commitments in 1995–96 is forecast to be nil. Figures for later years are published in table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97". Projections are not currently available for years beyond 1998–89.

  Merchant Vessels
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the name of every merchant vessel and its country of registration chartered by his Department for(a) exercises and (b) military support and re-supply operations since the beginning of 1995. [4579]
  342
  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Vessels chartered for exercise

  Vessel name

  Flag

  Arroyofrio Dos

  Spanish

  Dana Minerva

  Danish

  Condock V (Twice)

  German

  King of Scandinavia

  Danish

  Winston Churchill

  Danish

  Condock III

  German

  Wloclawek

  Polish

  Arcade Eagle (Twice)

  Spanish

  Parkhaven

  Maltese

  Dana Corona

  Danish

  Goya

  Spanish

  Prince of Scandinavia

  Danish

  Mercandian Senator

  Danish

  Norbay

  British

  Norcape

  Dutch

  Belvaux

  Panamanian

  Villars

  Swiss

  Feederteam

  Maltese

  Arcade Falcon

  Norwegian

  Marianne Danica

  Danish

  Sine Boye

  Danish

  Lyn

  Danish

  Italica

  Italian

  Vessels chartered for support

  Vessel Name

  Flag

  Kapitan Mezentsyev

  Ukrainian

  NDS Atlantic

  Dutch

  Neptune Olympic (Twice)

  Greek

  Mercandian Senator

  Danish

  Dana Hafnia

  Danish

  Yuriy Maksaryov

  Ukrainian

  Petro Mersey (Three times)

  British

  Petro Fawley (Twice)

  British

  Rotesand

  German

  Flex Installer

  Bahamian

  Dubalti

  Latvian

  Marine Explorer

  British

  Fionan of Skellig

  Irish

  Northella

  British

  Oil Mariner

  British

  Stena Constructor

  Bahamian

  OTS Yeoman

  British

  Maersk Ascension

  British

  Kommander Subsea

  British

  Discovery

  British

  Aquamarine

  Liberian

  Ottaviano

  Italian

  Ravello

  Italian

  Nordica

  Finnish

  Anfitrite

  Italian

  Sidsel Knutsen

  Norwegian

  Cargo Master

  Canadian

  Kondor

  Ukrainian

  St. Brandan

  British

  Celtic RoRo

  Bahamian

  Sea Bird

  Danish

  Pietersgracht

  Dutch

  Lion

  Danish

  Condock III

  German

  Condock V

  German

  Stevnsland

  Antiguan

  Rosen

  Danish

  Arneb

  German

  Jens Munk

  Danish

  Arcade Falcon

  Norwegian

  Maersk Gannet

  British

  Territorial Army
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of members of the Territorial Army who will be called up to serve(a) as part of the implementation force in Bosnia and (b) elsewhere in the next months. [4569]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 6 December 1995,Official Report, column 244.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tasks are to be assigned to members of the Territorial Army as part of the implementation force in Bosnia. [4570]

  Mr. Soames
  Most members of the Territorial Army and Army reserve who are being called out to serve with the implementation force will fill war establishment posts in regular army units, primarily headquarters and signal units, military police companies and logistics units.

  Fire Training Establishments
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all his Department's fire training establishments in the United Kingdom; how many(a) military and (b) civilian personnel are currently (i) employed and (ii) being trained at these establishments giving the duration of the training; and what have been (1) the average running costs and (2) the annual maintenance costs of each establishment in each of the last five years. [4170]

  Mr. Soames
  The Department's only single role fire training establishment is the MOD fire service central training establishment at RAF Manston, where there are 27 civilian and 23 military established posts. The number of personnel being trained depends on which courses are being run; this year's figures show that there have been 834 civilian and 326 military students, and since the CTE was reorganised in 1991, 3,728 civilians and 1,230 military personnel have attended courses there. The duration will depend on the course, of which there are some 20, covering every aspect of fire training. The MOD FSCTE is a lodger unit at RAF Manston, thus disaggregating the running and maintenance costs for the centre from the overall station costs can be done only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department also has other training establishments where fire training can be part of the course structure. These are the school of flight deck operations at the royal naval air station Culdrose; the nuclear biological and chemical defence school at HMS Excellent; the Plymouth command NBCD school at HMS Raleigh; and the school of logistics, royal logistics training group at Deepcut. Additionally, some MOD personnel attend specialist fire safety courses at such training centres as the Home Office school at Moreton-in-Marsh.

  Where active fire cover is provided at MOD establishments, facilities for continuation training are provided. Moreover, the MOD has task training integrated across the board. All military and civilian personnel are given the appropriate fire fighting training as part of the Department's duty of care.

  Theft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to his Department of 344
  theft by (a) military personnel and (b) civilian personnel in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [4564]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Theft by service personnel £000s

  Theft by civilians £000s

  1985–86

  125.2

  49.0

  1986–87

  0.0

  0.0

  1987–88

  24.1

  222.1

  1988–89

  0.0

  150.0

  1989–90

  0.0

  19.7

  1990–91

  2.0

  581.8

  1991–92

  4.3

  0.0

  1992–93

  1.4

  39.0

  1993–94

  183.8

  126.7

  1994–95

  35.5

  272.7

  These figures are expressed in gross terms and they make no allowance for subsequent recoveries.

  There are wide fluctuations from year to year and no obvious trend, but we are far from complacent and have taken a range of preventive measures.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military personnel and (b) civilian personnel have been (i) charged and (ii) found guilty of theft in his Department in each of the last five years. [4566]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table.

  Service

  Civilian

  Year

  Charged

  Guilty

  Charged

  Guilty

  1990–91

  10

  10

  10

  10

  1991–92

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1992–93

  1

  1

  9

  3

  1993–94

  11

  5

  18

  11

  1994–95

  9

  7

  28

  19

  Court Martial System
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his proposals for the reform of the court martial system. [5077]

  Mr. Soames
  We have undertaken a review of the court martial system as part of our preparations for the Armed Forces Bill which was introduced recently.

  As a result, we are including in the Bill proposals to reform aspects of the court martial system, while enabling it to continue to meet the armed forces' requirement to administer discipline firmly but fairly. I am today putting a note setting out the detail of these proposals in the Library, and copies will be available in the Vote Office. The main features of the changes are as follows: there will be changes in the formal part played in court martial proceedings by the military chain of command. Its functions, such as settling charges, responsibility for the prosecution and appointing court martial members, will remain in the services but generally be independent of the chain of command; there will be an enhancement of the part played at court martial by the judge advocate, who is similar in many ways to a judge in a civilian court; the right for defendants to choose to have their cases tried

  345
  by court martial, rather than dealt with summarily by the commanding officer, will be extended; access to the courts martial appeal court, which is composed of senior civilian judges, will be extended, to enable it to hear appeals against sentence as well as against conviction.

  This last proposal is already included in the Armed Forces Bill. Amendments to the Bill to address the other proposals which require legislation will be tabled shortly.

  The court martial system has served the services very well over the years. We believe that the proposals represent a major improvement to the present system and will enable it to continue to fulfil its purpose for a long time to come.

  Defence Contracts
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts that his Department has with(a) Junghans, (b) Borletti and (c) Raufoss over the last five years; and if these companies are permitted to bid for current procurement contracts. [3865]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: As my predecessor stated on 23 November 1993, Official Report, column 309, and as has been confirmed on several occasions since, my Department will not be placing any new contracts with the firms concerned until all the facts relating to the Foxley case have been fully investigated. Details of contracts placed with Raufoss and Junghans in the last five years are given below. All these contracts have been completed. No contracts have been placed with Borletti in the last five years, but one contract has been placed with the division of Fiat which acquired Borletti's interests. This contract is due to complete in 1996.

  Company

  Store

  Date

  Value(£000s)

  Raufoss

  27mm Ammo

  7 January 1991

  233

  25mm Ammo

  25 February 1991

  24

  12.7mm Ammo

  29 October 1991

  5

  20mm Ammo

  16 July 1992

  11

  Rocket Warheads

  2 September 1993

  1,200

  Ammo Testing

  5 October 1992

  8

  Rocket Warheads

  11 September 1992

  342

  Study into Non-ricochet Ammo

  27 October 1993

  155

  Junghans

  Fuze L127A3

  2 October 1992

  589

  Fiat (Borletti Division)

  Fuze L85A2

  20 March 1991

  2,088

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of all the submissions received from the Department of Health, NHS executive, health authorities and NHS trusts in response to the "Front Line First" proposed changes to defence medical services. [4462]

  Mr. Soames
  Three formal submissions were received from the NHS in response to the defence costs study 15 consultative document. Copies of these submissions will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rosyth Naval Base
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on negotiations on the sale of Rosyth naval base to Rosyth 2000; and if he will ensure that commercial operations will be in place from 1 January 1996. [3647]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: Negotiations with the preferred bidder, Rosyth 2000 Ltd., a consortium of leading Scottish businesses, are under way. Commercial operations on a small scale are likely to be developed from 1 January 1996, with an anticipated date of transfer from military to civilian use on 31 March 1996.

  Mr. Fouad Uzzourni
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions since 1980 Ministers or officials of his Department have met Mr. Fouad Uzzourni since 1980; and what was the purpose of the meetings. [4191]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am not aware of Ministers or officials in my Department having met a Mr. Fouad Uzzourni.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4274]

  Mr. Soames
  There are nine digital global systems for mobile communications mobile telephones in the Ministry of Defence which may be used by Ministers.

  Army (Establishment)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the Gurkhas and (b) the Royal Irish Regiment are included in the figure given for the strength of the Army on paragraph 507 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995". [4574]

  Mr. Soames
  The figure included some 4,000 Gurkhas and 850 general service personnel of the Royal Irish Regiment. It excluded full and part-time soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service).

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned establishment in April 1996 of(a) the Gurkhas and (b) the Royal Irish Regiment. [4575]

  Mr. Soames
  The planned establishment for the Gurkhas at April 1996 is around 4,000; for the Royal Irish Regiment (General Service) 850, and for the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service) 3,300 full-time soldiers and 2,400 part-time soldiers.

  Implementation Force (Bosnia)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what inoculations against chemical and biological weapons British troops being deployed as part of the implementation force have received; [4578]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the implications for the implementation force of the potential use of chemical and biological weapons in Bosnia; [4576]
  347
  (3) what instructions have been issued to the implementation force regarding the potential use of chemical and biological weapons in Bosnia. [4577]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has examined all aspects of the potential threat to the implementation force from chemical and biological weapons. All necessary measures are being taken, though it would not be appropriate to go into detail.

  Ambulance
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the replacement order for his Department's ambulances. [4568]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The assessment of the competition to purchase ambulances for the Army is not yet complete. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to make a statement at this stage.

  Starstreak Missile
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of the Starstreak missile for the attack helicopter. [4572]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The United Kingdom is currently participating in the first phase of a United States programme to examine the feasibility of using a variant of the Starstreak high velocity missile, which recently entered service with the British Army in the ground-to-air role as an air-to-air missile fro Apache. This phase will culminate in the middle of next year in trials in the US to demonstrate safe release of Starstreak from a US Army AH-64A aircraft. Subject to the satisfactory outcome of these trials, further phases on a co-operative basis are planned.

  Mortar Shells
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies supplying his Department with 81mm illuminating mortar shells. [4573]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There is no current contract for 81mm illuminating mortar rounds. The most recent contract, for which deliveries ended in December 1993, was with the Italian company, Simmel Difesa.

  Attack Helicopter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the decision to place the contract for the helmet and associated avionics for the Army attack helicopter out to tender was taken; what companies are bidding for this contract; what is the total value of this contract; and what plans his Department had made for the manufacture of the helmet prior to that decision. [4580]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The possibility of an improved helmet and sighting system to replace the current, first generation US Army integrated helmet and display sighting system was identified by Westland Helicopters in its attack helicopter bid. As part of the selection process, it was decided to proceed with this option. As prime contractor, Westland has been tasked to hold a sub-contract 348
  competition for this equipment and will issue an invitation to tender early in the new year. The value of the contract will be dependent on the chosen system.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his Department's decision on the collocation of the Army Technical Support Agency on to one main site; when he originally anticipated making this announcement; and what factors underlay the delay. [4563]

  Mr. Soames
  I intend to announce our proposals shortly. This will be followed by a period of consultation.

  We originally intended to announce our proposals earlier this year but had to examine in detail more potential sites than had first been anticipated.

  Military Communications Satellites
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for further orders for military communications satellites. [5076]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Subject to the successful completion of contractual negotiations, we intend to place an order worth more than £100 million Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd., for a third Skynet 4 stage 2 communications satellite. The stage 2 satellites will start coming into service from 1998. The Skynet 4 stage 2 programme will enable us to maintain dedicated satellite communications into the next century for British forces deployed throughout the world, in theatres as diverse as Bosnia, the middle east and the Falkland Islands. Such a capability is of great importance to mobile operations, including those of the joint rapid deployment force, where military units may be in range of reliable terrestrial communications. The planned order will also provide substantial further work for the British space industry.

  Departmental Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Ministry are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Cambridgeshire. [4764]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department owns the following vacant dwellings in these parliamentary constituencies in Cambridgeshire:

  Number

  Huntingdon

  552

  South-east Cambridgeshire

  8

  South-west Cambridgeshire

  54

  A total of 478 properties in Huntingdon have recently been handed back by the United States Air Force. Of these, 193 are surplus to requirements and will he sold while the remainder will be retained to house a squadron returning from overseas. In south-west Cambridgeshire, 42 of the vacant properties are awaiting sale. Information on the number of properties vacant for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  349
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how any dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Devon and Cornwall. [4554]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department owns the following vacant dwellings in these parliamentary constituencies in Devon and Cornwall.

  Number

  North Devon

  120

  Exeter

  8

  Plymouth Devonport

  340

  Plymouth Drake

  4

  Plymouth Sutton

  65

  Torridge and West Devon

  8

  North Cornwall

  65

  St. Ives

  98

  South East Cornwall

  13

  A total of 152 vacant quarters in Plymouth, Devonport, and 91 vacant quarters in St. Ives are in the process of being sold. A further 52 vacant quarters in Plymouth, Devonport have been identified for leasing to Plymouth city council. One hundred and twenty vacant quarters in north Devon and 50 in north Cornwall are being held for unit deployments. Information on the number of properties vacant for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultancies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultancies his Department has placed in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [4571]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of his Ministry's properties there are on(a) the Dale Road estate, Haverfordwest an (b) the Trafalgar Road estate, Haverfordwest; [4736]

  (2) what are his plans for the disposal of his Ministry's housing at the Trafalgar Road estate, Haverfordwest and the Dale Road estate, Haverfordwest; [4738]

  (3) if he will list those parts of his Ministry's housing at (a) Dale Road estate and (b) Trafalgar Road estate, Haverfordwest, which the private sector has expressed an interest in buying; [4737]

  (4) how many of his Ministry's properties at (a) the Dale Road estate, Haverfordwest, and (b) Trafalgar Road estate, Haverfordwest, are currently vacant. [4735]
  350
  Mr. Soames
  My Department owns the following properties on the estate mentioned at Haverfordwest:

  Stock

  Vacant

  Dale Road estate

  188

  85

  Trafalgar Road estate

  253

  93

  The properties on the Trafalgar Road estate are surplus to our long-term requirements and we are currently negotiating to sell 216 of them to a housing association. The remaining 37 will probably be offered for sale to service personnel through the services' discount scheme. The vacant properties on the Dale Road estate are being held for a unit returning from Germany. In common with other parts of the married quarters estate in England and Wales, these married quarters may be transferred to the private sector as part of the proposal announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 30 November 1995, Official Report, columns 810-11.

ENVIRONMENT

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons the Smoke Detectors Act 1991 has not fully been brought into force; and when he intends to fully bring it into force. [197]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Section 1(2) of the Smoke Detectors Act 1991 requires all new dwellings to he fitted with one or more smoke detectors in such a manner as to make adequate provision for the early detection of the outbreak of fire in the dwelling. I do not intend to bring the Act into force because its provisions would simply duplicate measures introduced under the Building Regulations 1991 for smoke alarms to be fitted in new dwellings.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average council tax bill in each English standard planning region in the latest year for which figures are available. [4296]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The average headline council taxes —band C, two adults—for the area in each English standard planning region in 1995–96 are as follows:

  Region

  £

  Northern

  602

  North West

  628

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  561

  East Midlands

  562

  West Midlands

  545

  East Anglia

  498

  South East

  505

  London

  512

  South West

  530

  England

  541

  Amounts shown are headline taxes, before transitional relief and council tax benefit/rebates after capping.

  Ealing Council
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reserves are currently held by Ealing council; what were the equivalent figures for(a) 1 April 1994 and (b) 1 April 1990; and if he will make a statement. [4169]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department has recently conducted a survey of the general fund revenue reserves held by local authorities during 1994–95. The results show that the London borough of Ealing held about £36.9 million in revenue reserves at 1 April 1994, of which about £11.8 million were unallocated, the remainder being earmarked for specific purposes or held on behalf of schools under local management of schools schemes.

  At the time of the survey, Ealing expected its revenue reserves on 1 April 1995 to be £36.4 million, of which £3.9 million would be unallocated, £2.5 million held on behalf of schools, and £30 million held in other earmarked reserves.

  Figures for 1 April 1990 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Public Local Inquiries
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the time scale for inquiries under the Town and Country Planning Act recommended in the inquiries procedure rules; and if he will make a statement on the Planning Inspectorate's ability to meet this time scale. [4205]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: The provision of information on public local inquiries is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the inspectorate's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from James Greenfield to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State asked the Chief Planning Inspector to reply to your question about the timescale for inquiries under the Town and Country Planning Act recommended in the Inquiries Procedure Rules, and the Planning Inspectorate's ability to meet this timescale. Mr. Shepley is away from the office at this time, and I am writing on his behalf.In the case of planning appeals and planning applications called-in for the Secretary of State's decision, the Inquiries Procedure Rules state that the inquiry shall be not later than 20 weeks or 22 weeks respectively after the relevant start date for the case, unless such a date is impracticable.Generally, the earliest possible date for an inquiry to be arranged is about 14 weeks after the relevant date (16 weeks or more for called-in applications), allowing the parties adequate time to submit and exchange statements and prepare proofs of evidence within the recommended timescales.There is a general delay in arranging dates for these inquiries caused by the need to provide Inspectors for development plan inquiries. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 required mandatory district wide plans to be published by local authorities, so that future development control decisions were made in accordance with the plans, unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Ministers expectations were that all plans would be in place, by the end of 1996. Extra Inspectors have been recruited, but are undergoing an extensive training programme before they become fully effective.Within the Inspectorate's published Business Plan there are a number of performance targets, many of which are measured against the time taken to complete 80% of our caseloads. The latest statistics show that during September, 80% of the dates for inquiries proposed
  352
  by the Inspectorate to the parties were made within 40 weeks of the relevant dates. The earliest date proposed was made in week 18, and the latest date in week 51. The average waiting time for an inquiry date was 35 weeks.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3399]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 6 December 1995,Official Report, column 239.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3400]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The policy aim of the PFI is to improve the quality and quantity of capital projects within whatever level of public funding is available at a given time. The agreement of specific schemes under the private finance initiative will not result in changes in the policy.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Departments have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4260]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information we have received from service providers suggests that in the last 18 months one of the mobile/car telephones allocated for the use of Ministers and their private offices has been cloned. The phone was one allocated for use by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4259]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Thirteen car/mobile telephones are allocated for the use of Ministers and their private offices.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the total external support available to Buckinghamshire county council from business rates and revenue support grant for each financial year since 1990–91 to 1996–97; and if he will make a statement; [4695]

  (2) if he will list the total external support available to (a) Aylesbury Vale district council, (b) Wycombe district council and (c) Chiltern district for each financial year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement. [4696]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Between 1990–91 and 1992–93 redistributed non-domestic rates and revenue support grant were paid only into the collection funds operated by billing authorities. These payments supported expenditure incurred by both the billing authority and also by any precepting authorities. There is therefore no data for those
  353
  years in respect of Buckinghamshire CC, and the figures for the district councils are not comparable with those for later years. The figures from 1993–94 onwards are given.

  Non-domestic rates are redistributed to each authority on a per head basis. RSG is calculated as the difference between its standard spending assessment and the sum of the income from its council tax—assuming that its tax was set at the council tax for standard spending for that type of authority—and its share of the distributable amount non-domestic rates. At national level, the change in the amount of RSG reflects change in each of these elements. The differential increases in RSG between authorities will reflect changes in assessed need, function—in particular the changed arrangements for police funding in 1995–96—and in the size of their own tax base.

  £thousand

  Revenue support grant

  Non domestic rates

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  1993–941

  174,081

  131,508

  1994–951

  192,144

  121,802

  1995–962

  166,086

  118,192

  1996–972 (provisional Settlement)

  153,407

  134,972

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  1993–94

  4,385

  5,199

  1994–95

  4,186

  4,846

  1995–96

  3,831

  5,069

  1996–97 (provisional settlement)

  2,893

  5,376

  Wycombe District Council

  1993–94

  3,505

  5,626

  1994–95

  4,263

  5,192

  1995–96

  3,903

  5,400

  1996–97 (provisional settlement)

  2,860

  5,754

  Chiltern District Council

  1993–94

  0

  3,149

  1994–95

  982

  2,912

  1995–96

  834

  3,037

  1996–97 (provisional settlement)

  584

  3,234

  1 Including funding for Buckinghamshire's share of Thames Valley Police.

  2 Excluding funding for police.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what impact the reduction in the amount of the area costs adjustment has had on the levels of standard spending assessment and total external support for 1996–97 for(a) Buckinghamshire county council, (b) Aylesbury Vales district council, (c) Chiltern district council, and (d) Wycombe district council; and if he will make a statement. [4694]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The changes proposed to the area cost adjustment factors for 1996–97 reflect information from the 1994 new earnings survey showing a narrowing of the cost differentials between authorities in London and the south-east and authorities elsewhere.

  We estimate that had we used the factors which were used in the 1995–96 settlement, proposed SSAs for the authorities would have been higher by approximately the following amounts.
  354

  £ million

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  2.23

  Aylesbury Vale District Council

  0.07

  Chiltern District Council

  0.06

  Wycombe District Council

  0.07

  The authorities' total external support would also have been higher by approximately the same amounts.

  Warwickshire Funding
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total funding made available to Warwickshire in 1995–96; and what it was in each of the three previous years. [4837]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1992–93 redistributed non domestic and revenue support grant were paid only in the collection funds operated by billing authorities. These payments supported expenditure incurred by both the billing authorities and also by any precepting authorities. Data concerning total funding in 1992–93 are therefore not comparable with those for later years. The figures from 1993–94 to 1995–96 are given.

  Non-domestic rates are redistributed to each authority on a per head basis. Revenue support grant is calculated as the difference between its standard spending assessment and the sum of the income from its council tax—assuming that its tax was set at the council tax for standard spending for that type of authority—and its share of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates. Revenue support grant and specific grants declined in 1995–96 because of the establishment of the new Warwickshire police authority.

  Warwickshire County Council

  £ thousand

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Revenue support grant

  94,197

  106,115

  96,582

  Non domestic rates

  100,626

  92,801

  89,737

  Specific and special grants inside AEF

  36,834

  37,907

  12,563

  Specific and special grants outside AEF

  30,601

  35,104

  24,261

  Total funding

  262,258

  271,927

  223,143

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3409]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office has entered into two contractual agreements under the private finance initiative.

  The estimated revenue commitment per year for the police national network service is not available. Individual police forces' purchase usage of the network from public funds, but the value during the lifetime of the scheme will depend on demand. The contract is for five years.
  355
  The lease for the Gatwick airport immigration detention facility is for 25 years. Rental is £987,000 per annum fixed for the next five years. After this period the rental will be re-negotiated. There will also be a separately negotiated management contract.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3410]

  Mr. Howard
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative does not result in changes to the policy of the Government on the PFI. Agreed schemes do, however, represent the application of the PFI policy and offer us the opportunity further to refine the process of implementation. The lessons learned are set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by HM Treasury and the private finance panel, and a copy is available in the Library.

  Fine Enforcement
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the Lord Chancellor about the impact of the scheduled transfer of responsibility for the system of fine enforcement. [3974]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to remove from the police the administrative work relating to enforcement of warrants which divert them from more essential police work. There has been an exchange of correspondence about the timing of the proposed transfer of responsibility for the enforcement of certain categories of warrants from the police to the magistrates courts. The matter is now the subject of judicial review.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4257]

  Mr. Howard
  Six.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4258]

  Mr. Howard
  The number of detected instances of cloning of Ministers' official mobile telephones in my Department during(a) the last six months; (b) the previous six months; and (c) the six months before that were zero, two and zero respectively.

  The mobile telephones issued to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he was serving as Minister of State in my Department, were cloned.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if answers to questions tabled by hon. Members which fall within the responsibilities of executive agencies of his Office are submitted to Ministers for approval before publication in the Official Report. [4740]

  Mr. Howard
  It is the normal practice for Ministers to see the proposed replies to questions tabled by hon. Members which fall within the responsibility of chief executives of Home Office executive agencies before they appear in the Official Report.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out for each of the last 10 years for which information is available(a) according to country of origin the number of applications for asylum from those seeking to enter the United Kingdom from abroad together with the number accepted and (b) the number of applications for asylum from those already in the United Kingdom together with the number accepted. [4516]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the number of asylum applications made and decisions taken, by location of application, for the years 1992 to 1994, is given in tables 4.1 to 4.3 of Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994" issue 15/95. Similar information on asylum applications for the years 1998 to 1991 is given in table 2.2 of issues 13/93 and 12/92 of the same publication. Copies of all issues of this bulletin are available in the Library. An equivalent breakdown of decisions prior to 1992 is not available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers appealed against the initial decision on their claims in 1994; and what percentage of the total of those whose claims were initially rejected this represented. [4236]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In 1994, there were 16,500 initial decisions to refuse asylum. During the same year, 10,580 appeals against the refusal of asylum were lodged with the Home Office. However, some of these appeals will have been made against decisions which were taken at the end of 1993 and some of those applications who were refused may have exercised more than one right of appeal. For these reasons, an accurate appeal rate cannot he calculated.

  Terrorism (Exclusion Orders)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to establish a wholly independent authority to consider exclusion orders under prevention of terrorism legislation; and if the persons so appointed will be subject to official secrets legislation in respect of the information provided to them. [4523]

  Mr. Howard
  Independent persons have been appointed to consider exclusion orders since the prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was introduced. The European Court of Justice has ruled
  357
  that the method of appointing the independent advisers is satisfactory. They are subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in cases where recommendations to exclude persons under the prevention of terrorism legislation are not approved by the wholly independent persons appointed to consider such cases. [4524]

  Mr. Howard
  The Secretary of State is not bound by legislation to accept the advisers' recommendations. Responsibility for national security results rests ultimately with the Secretary of State. However, in recent years, advisers' recommendations have generally been accepted. These recommendations have by no means always supported exclusion orders, which have sometimes been revoked accordingly.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedures to be followed by the wholly independent persons appointed to consider recommendations for exclusion under prevention of terrorism legislation with particular reference to the rights of persons being excluded learning of the nature of the evidence offered against them. [4525]

  Mr. Howard
  The adviser will offer the individual concerned an interview, either in Northern Ireland or in the British embassy in Dublin. Legal representation is permitted. The adviser will have access to the documentation on the basis of which a recommendation for exclusion has been made. The adviser will submit a report to the Secretary of State who then makes a final decision.

  Exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 relate to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or travel for those purposes; details are highly sensitive and could not be divulged without prejudicing the fight against terrorism. That is why any individual may make representations to an independent adviser, and all cases are subject to further oversight as part of the annual review of the operation of the prevention of terrorism Act.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been excluded from the mainland of the United Kingdom under prevention of terrorism legislation; and on what basis he has concluded that none of them will be entitled to compensation. [4526]

  Mr. Howard
  Four hundred and forty-one people have been excluded from Great Britain or the United Kingdom since the introduction of this legislation in 1974. Differentiation between those excluded from Great Britain and those excluded from the United Kingdom since 1974 could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  To claim compensation, an individual would have to show that he had suffered loss as a direct result of the failure to follow procedures deemed necessary by the European Court of Justice. There is no evidence to support this in any of these cases, since the Court has called into question the process, rather than the fact, of exclusion. In
  358
  many instances, the decision to exclude was subsequently backed up by an independent adviser who had had a chance to interview the individual.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he had made of the cost of providing a wholly independent review of persons considered for exclusion under protection of terrorism legislation. [4527]

  Mr. Howard
  An independent review process already exists. Each individual who is excluded is offered the opportunity to make representations to an independent adviser. The European Court of Justice judgment in Gallagher concerned the point at which the reference should be made to an adviser. We are currently considering its implications.

  Church Commissioners
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretay of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with(a) the Church Commissioners and (b) the General Synod on the desirability of the commissioners ceasing to be covered by exempted status in respect of their supervision by the Charity Commissioners. [4591]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Racism and Xenophobia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his reasons for objecting to the proposed EEC draft joint action concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia. [4562]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As currently drafted, the joint action would require us to change our law so as to criminalise certain forms of behaviour which are not currently offences in the United Kingdom or to derogate from the principle of dual criminality as regards judicial co-operation in respect of those forms of behaviour. United Kingdom civil and criminal law responds in a balanced way to the real mischiefs of which there is currently evidence in this country. The Government are committed to protecting people from threats, abuse and insults based on their race; and we are working towards a solution which will allow all 15 member states to agree a European Union instrument on this subject.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of illegal immigrants have been granted bail in each of the last 36 months; and what requirement they must meet in order to receive social security payments. [4593]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Statistics are not available on immigration offenders granted bail. The other information requested is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) entered the country illegally and (b) were apprehended entering the United Kingdom illegally by (i) lorry, (ii) small boat and (iii) light aircraft, in each of the last 36 months. [4592]
  359
  Mr. Kirkhope
  There are no official estimates of the number of people who have entered the United Kingdom illegally. The number of illegal entrants detected in each of the last three years for which statistics have been published are:

  1992: 5,658

  1993: 5,778

  1994: 7,389 (provisional).

  Information about the means by which these people entered, claimed to have entered or attempted to enter illegally is not maintained centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations underlay his decision not to issue a White Paper before publishing the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [4561]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  My right hon. and learned Friend made a full statement on 20 November,Official Report, columns 335–38, in which he explained the need for this proposed legislation.

  Police (Costs)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how he proposes to implement and monitor the recruitment of 5,000 additional police officers; [4031]

  (2) what steps he intends to take to ensure that chief constables do not use their share of the cash for recruiting additional police officers for normal recruiting to replace wastage, or for other purposes. [4026]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: The Government are providing sufficient funding to allow an additional 5,000 police officers to be recruited over the next three financial years. The additional funding is to be allocated separately to police forces. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary will introduce a mechanism to monitor the use by forces of the extra funding.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the average total annual cost of employing(a) a police officer for a year and (b) an additional police constable and what is the average cost of employing a new recruit to the police service including the cost of training and other costs during the first full year of employment. [4027]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 5 December 1995]: The most recent estimate of the average total annual cost of employing a police officer is £42,000. The figure was calculated on the basis of total expenditure and total police strength of provincial forces in England and Wales.

  Data on the average annual cost of employing a police constable are not collected centrally.

  The estimated average costs of employing an additional probationer constable in 1996–97 are shown in the table:

  Cost of a probationer constable

  Outside London £

  London £

  Estimated salary

  16,117

  16,117

  London Weighting

  —

  1,398

  360

  Cost of a probationer constable

  Outside London £

  London £

  London Allowance

  —

  1,011

  Earning Related National Insurance Contributions

  1,251

  —

  Earning Related National Insurance Contributions

  —

  1,424

  Estimated training expenses

  2,000

  2,000

  Estimated cost of uniform

  370

  370

  Total

  19,738

  22,320

  Human Genetics Report
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take in response to data protection issues raised in the third report of the Science and Technology Select Committee, of Session 1994–95, on "human genetics: the Science and its Consequences", HC 41. [3918]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government will be responding to the Select Committee in due course.

  Police (Speaking Engagements)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) guidance and (b) instructions are issued to serving police officers of superintendent rank and above, concerning invitations to speak at meetings where (i) the invitation is by virtue of being a serving police officer and (ii) the meeting is arranged by a political organisation. [4005]

  Mr. Maclean
  Regulation 9 and schedule 2 of the Police Regulations 1995 prohibit a police officer from taking an active part in politics. This provision does not necessarily preclude an officer from accepting an invitation to speak at a political or other gathering.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a statement on the review of the Data Protection Act 1984. [3920]

  Mr. Sackville
  I expect to announce the outcome of the "prior options" study of the office of the Data Protection Registrar shortly. Work on the implications of the European Union data protection directive is in progress. I expect to publish a consultation paper in due course.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Social Security on the extension of data protection legislation. [3919]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have had no such discussions with my right hon. Friend.

  Police (Sandown Racecourse)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the daily or hourly rate charged for and paid to police officers at the Sandown racecourse exhibition. [3785]
  361
  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the decision to deploy police at this event was an operational one and as such no charges will be made to the organisers of the exhibition. The rates of pay for the individual officers involved are not readily available. I regret that the estimated additional total police cost for this operation given in my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 27 November,Official Report, 467, was miscalculated. I understand that the correct total figure if £2,100.

  Police (Brightlingsea)
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on complaints about the policing of demonstrations against animal exports at Brightlingsea. [3789]

  Mr. Maclean
  The investigation of individual complaints against police officers is a matter for the chief constable and the Police Complaints Authority. I understand that 112 complaints have been received, and that none of the 68 so far dealt with has been substantiated. The report of the inquiry supervised by the Police Complaints Authority noted that on the whole officers had shown considerable constraint. I commend the chief constable of Essex police on a very successful operation in extremely difficult policing circumstances.

  Regional Crime Squads
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of HM inspectors' reports on the inspections carried out of the South and West Wales, the South West and North West and the South East regional crime squads during 1994–95. [3992]

  Mr. Maclean
  Copies of these reports are already in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Health Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of the general managers, chairs and board members and their correspondence addresses for each of the health boards in Scotland. [1187]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1995]: As the information requested is lengthy, I have arranged for copies of the lists to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department had with the officials of Greater Glasgow and Borders health boards relating to their under-drawing of their budgets for 1994–95; and what representations their boards have made in relation to these surpluses being carried forward into the current financial year. [4470]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Officials in my Department have had frequent discussions with officials of Greater Glasgow and Borders health boards relating to under-drawing of budget for 1994–95 and these 362
  discussions are continuing. The final amounts to be carried forward into the current financial year have not yet been agreed but the boards have made representations seeking to maximise the carry-forward amounts within the normal operating rules. The final figures will be determined soon.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the budgets for 1995–96 for each of Scotland's health boards; and if he will indicate for each board the percentage charge on the budgets for 1994–95. [4471]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Health board

  £thousand

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Percentage Increase

  Argyll and Clyde

  210,398

  217,764

  3.50

  Ayrshire and Arran

  171,635

  179,208

  4.41

  Borders

  53,658

  56,502

  5.30

  Dumfries and Galloway

  75,331

  80,587

  6.98

  Fife

  157,148

  164,276

  4.54

  Forth Valley

  124,511

  128,711

  3.37

  Grampian

  225,961

  233,520

  3.35

  Greater Glasgow

  484,605

  495,402

  2.23

  Highland

  99,118

  103,318

  4.24

  Lanarkshire

  241,124

  254,676

  5.62

  Lothian

  343,583

  356,919

  3.88

  Orkney

  10,377

  10,924

  5.27

  Shetland

  11,196

  11,571

  3.35

  Tayside

  198,080

  203,865

  2.92

  Western Isles

  18,150

  18,838

  3.79

  Total

  2,424,873

  2,516,081

  3.76

  Note:

  The figures report basic revenue allocations which are based on weighted capitation requirements with adjustment for moves to funding parity. Additionally Boards receive allocations for capital charges and to meet a range of service specific costs. These include, for example, the costs of nurse education and training, the additional costs associated with the teaching of doctors and such allocations reflect actual costs and will vary from Board to Board.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 318, how much of the surpluses in the budgets for 1994–95 of Borders health board and Greater Glasgow health board were not transferred to the current financial year's budget for these boards. [4473]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provisional figures provided in the previous answer of 23 November have still to be finalised and therefore no transfer of funding to the health boards has yet taken place. It is anticipated, however, that all of Borders health board's surplus will be transferred but that £1.837 million of Greater Glasgow health board's surplus will not be transferred as this element relates to a ring-fenced capital allocation underspend which is not available for carry-forward purposes.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of the chief executives, chairs and executive and non-executive directors and the trust correspondence addresses for each of the NHS trusts currently in operation in Scotland. [1188]
  363
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 November 1995]: As the information requested is lengthy, I have arranged for copies of the lists to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the budget for each of Scotland's NHS trusts for the 1994–95 financial year indicating the surplus or deficit declared by each NHS trust; and if he will list the budget for each NHS trust for 1995–96 indicating the percentage change against the previous financial year. [4472]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the tables. The surplus-deficit and total income figures for each trust in 1994–95 have been taken from the 1994–95 NHS trust annual accounts. The 1995–96 total income figures have been taken from the latest financial monitoring returns provided by each trust.

  NHS Trust Income for 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Trust Name

  1994–95 Income

  1995–96 Income

  Percentage Difference

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  123,084

  130,078

  5.38

  Angus NHS Trust

  40,874

  40,003

  -2.18

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust1

  —

  29,579

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  59,168

  59,705

  0.90

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust1

  —

  25,494

  —

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust1

  —

  30,174

  —

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  15,308

  15,542

  1.51

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  47,655

  70,188

  32,10

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  39,798

  41,384

  3.83

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust1

  —

  40,860

  —

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  58,211

  58,229

  0.03

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  114,524

  120,128

  4.67

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  53,711

  53,185

  -0.99

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  85,132

  83,328

  -2.16

  Edinburgh Sick Childrens' NHS Trust

  27,091

  27,771

  2.45

  Falkirk and District NHS Trust

  36,970

  37,052

  0.22

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  81,677

  80,825

  -1.05

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust1

  —

  10,280

  —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  119,729

  124,824

  4.08

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  135,767

  128,628

  -5.55

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  152,023

  147,365

  -3.16

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  48,705

  48,063

  -1.34

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  52,258

  47,917

  -9.06

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  39,095

  38,103

  -2.60

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  46,759

  46,630

  -0.28

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust1

  —

  84,851

  —

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  45,318

  46,247

  2.01

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust1

  —

  32,192

  —

  364

  NHS Trust Income for 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Trust Name

  1994–95 Income

  1995–96 Income

  Percentage Difference

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  53,356

  56,035

  4.78

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  26,107

  28,838

  9.47

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  75,018

  76,766

  2.28

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  58,057

  58,356

  0.51

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  38,217

  38,507

  0.75

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  52,108

  53,707

  2.98

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  69,419

  68,716

  -1.02

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  50,653

  50,588

  -0.13

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  157,192

  153,817

  -2.19

  Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust1

  —

  72,893

  —

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  46,955

  46,148

  -1.75

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  81,170

  88,007

  7.77

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  40,741

  41,279

  1.30

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  66,459

  69,762

  4.73

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  59,298

  63,743

  6.97

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  113,090

  127,156

  11.06

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  66,652

  68,100

  2.13

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  75,258

  78,068

  3.60

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  55,747

  56,366

  1.10

  Total

  2,608,354

  2,995,477

  12.92

  1These are 4th wave Trusts and became operational on 1 April 1995. Figures for Cental Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust include those for Royal Scottish National Hospital NHS Trust which dissolved on formation of the new Trust on 1 October 1995.

  Surplus/Deficit declared in 1994–95

  Trust Name

  Surplus/Deficit

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,466

  Angus NHS Trust

  896

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  883

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  319

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  214

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  433

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,120

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  990

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  1,215

  Edingburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,332

  Edingburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  230

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  985

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,365

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  2,559

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,799

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  1,701

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  625

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  592

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  699

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  731

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  877

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  936

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  139

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  1,713

  365

  >Surplus/Deficit declared in 1994–95

  Trust Name

  Surplus/Deficit

  Pert and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,449

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  1,292

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  815

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,634

  Royal Alexander Hospital NHS Trust

  860

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  2,850

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  516

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,345

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  824

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  1,190

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  -5,646

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  2,233

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  989

  West General Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,061

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  925

  Total

  38,156

  Notes:

  1. Figures for Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust include those for Royal Scottish Nation Hospital NHS Trust which dissolved on formation of the new Trust on 1 October 1995.

  2. The deficit recorded by Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust was due to revaluation of the Royal Samartian Hospital prior to its disposal.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all NHS trusts(a) as of 30 November 1995 and (b) with effect from 1 April 1996. [4052]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 19 July 1995 at column 1534. The fourth wave of NHS trust hospitals in Scotland became effective on 1 April 1995. There are no plans to establish any further NHS trusts in Scotland.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the last 10 years the amount lost to Greater Glasgow health board due to progress towards Scottish health authorities "Priorities for the Eighties" parity. [3914]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Greater Glasgow health board has been, and still is, overfunded against its weighted capitation target. The table below details the

  Sterilisations of NHSiS Patients by Age and Sex, 1990–1994

  Under 20

  20-24

  25-29

  30-34

  35-39

  40-44

  45+

  All ages

  1990

  Males

  5

  91

  1,137

  2,325

  1,732

  767

  325

  6,382

  Females

  17

  624

  2,494

  2,788

  2,046

  875

  125

  8,969

  Both Sexes

  22

  715

  3,631

  5,113

  3,778

  1,642

  450

  15,351

  1991

  Males

  1

  86

  993

  2,129

  1,637

  713

  266

  5,825

  Females

  8

  608

  2,468

  3,074

  2,135

  858

  142

  9,293

  Both Sexes

  9

  694

  3,461

  5,203

  3,772

  1,571

  408

  15,118

  1992

  Males

  1

  71

  961

  2,154

  1,715

  765

  333

  6,000

  Females

  27

  663

  2,517

  3,108

  2,272

  825

  155

  9,567

  Both Sexes

  28

  734

  3,478

  5,262

  3,987

  1,590

  488

  15,567

  1993

  Males

  1

  68

  907

  2,296

  1,760

  828

  299

  6,159

  Females

  19

  535

  2,364

  3,078

  2,294

  832

  181

  9,303

  366
  board's moves to parity and the amount by which they remained over-funded against their weighted capitation target for the past 10 years.

  £ million

  Year

  Parity move

  Remainder overfunded

  1985–86

  2.106

  12.326

  1986–87

  -3.499

  14.922

  1987–88

  -3.780

  15.218

  1988–89

  -4.016

  16.494

  1989–90

  -6.660

  18.916

  1990–91

  -7.223

  30.515

  1991–92

  -13.000

  21.264

  1992–93

  -11.000

  17.657

  1993–94

  -3.234

  17.443

  1994–95

  -9.665

  18.326

  1995–96

  -9.355

  13.057

  Police (Speaking Engagements)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) guidance and (b) instructions are issued to serving police officers of superintendent rank and above, concerning invitations to speak at meetings where (i) the invitation is by virtue of being a serving police officer and (ii) the meeting is arranged by a political organisation. [4006]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regulation 4 and regulation 1 of the Police (Scotland) Regulations 1976 prohibit a police officer from taking an active part in politics but do not preclude an officer from accepting an invitation to speak at meetings arranged by political organisations.

  Sterilisations
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women in Scotland are sterilised annually, by standard census age group. [4103]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of sterilisations performed annually from 1990–1994 on Scottish NHS in-patients and day cases is given in the table.
  367

  Sterilisations of NHSiS Patients by Age and Sex, 1990–1994

  Under 20

  20-24

  25-29

  30-34

  35-39

  40-44

  45+

  All ages

  Both Sexes

  20

  603

  3,271

  5,374

  4,054

  1,660

  480

  15,462

  1994

  Males

  —

  67

  895

  2,344

  1,914

  842

  359

  6,421

  Females

  23

  461

  2,169

  3,081

  2,303

  847

  150

  9,034

  Both Sexes

  23

  528

  3,064

  5,425

  4,217

  1,689

  509

  15,455

  Data includes hospital in-patients, day cases and those sterilised after pregnancy or abortion.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3403]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Skye bridge involves no revenue commitment on the part of the Government. Figures for the revenue costs of the schemes completed or agreed so far in the health sector are not available centrally.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3404]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative does not result in changes to the policy of the Government on the PFI. Agreed schemes do, however, represent the application of PFI policy and offer the opportunity to further refine the process of implementation. The lessons learned are set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by HM Treasury and the private finance panel, and a copy is available in the Library.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4271]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been no instances of the cloning of hand portables but official vehicles used by Scottish Office Ministers when in London were cloned in December 1994, May 1995, twice, and in June 1995.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4272]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No Minister has a mobile telephone for his exclusive use but Ministers' private offices have a total of six. In addition, official vehicles used by Ministers are fitted with car phones.

  Scottish Valuation Advisory Council
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he will obtain advice pertaining to rating valuation after the demise of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council next year. [5285]
  368
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I wish to continue to receive objective advice concerning rating valuation in a manner appropriate to today's needs and circumstances. I am therefore establishing, with effect from 1 April 1996, a non-statutory advisory body, the Scottish Valuation and Rating Council, which will be smaller than the former advisory council but composed of members representing a similar breadth of interests and experience.

  The council's remit will be to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on any matter pertaining to valuation and rating, including evaluation of representations and recommendations made to him, the identification of issues requiring consideration, and advice in the preparation of legislation.

  I am happy to announce that the hon. Lord Clyde has agreed to accept appointment as the first chairman of this council. The appointment of other members will be announced at a later date.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Legislative Repeals
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legislation from his Department passed in the last five years contains provision for statutory repeal or review. [2029]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 27 November 1995]: There were no such provisions in recent legislation. However, major reviews have been carried out on MAFF legislation relating to areas such as milk marketing, agricultural tenancies and food law. These have resulted in the abolition of the milk marketing scheme and the introduction of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, under which landlords and tenants entering new tenancies will be able to agree terms which reflect their own particular needs. By 1 January 1996, we expect to repeal or simplify a series of national measures relating to food composition and food additives.

  Overgrazing
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) sheep and (b) breeding ewes have been removed in each less-favoured area to meet requirements to prevent overgrazing. [3224]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 30 November 1995]: The overgrazing provisions of the livestock premium schemes do not force farmers to remove animals from the less-favoured areas of the UK. They restrict the subsidy payments to farmers who continue to graze animals in excess of notified numbers on overgrazed land.

  369
  In England, notifications have been issued to 33 farmers, and over 8,500 sheep and about 400 breeding cows will have to be removed from overgrazed land if the graziers' livestock subsidies are to be unaffected by overgrazing penalties. Responsibility for the implementation of overgrazing provisions of the livestock subsidy schemes in other parts of the United Kingdom falls to the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3415]

  Mr. Boswell
  While several projects are currently being assessed for their potential, no schemes have so far been agreed under the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3416]

  Mr. Boswell
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative does not result in changes to the policy of the Government on the PFI. Agreed schemes do, however, represent the application of the PFI policy and offer us the opportunity to further refine the process of implementation. The lessons learned are set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by HM Treasury and the private finance initiative panel, and a copy is available in the Members' Library.

  Fish Discards
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has of the weight and value of fish accidentally caught by United Kingdom-based fishing vessels which under current quota arrangements have to be thrown back; and what proposals he has in respect of this matter. [4010]

  Mr. Baldry
  Rates of discarding vary greatly between the various sections of the UK fleet due to the fact that the number of small fish entering the fisheries each year is itself highly variable. Discard rates in the haddock and whiting fisheries can be in the region of 50 per cent. by weight of the catch if there are large numbers of small fish present. Discard rates in the larger species fisheries such as cod are very substantially less than this. The impression gained of discard practices by scientific observers is that relatively low volumes of fish are discarded for quota reasons.

  The problem is a Community-wide one and needs to be addressed on a Community level. I am determined to have a thorough reappraisal of discarding and technical conservation measures and I shall be pressing in the Fisheries Council for a concerted effort on this in 1996.

  Tuna
  Mr. Morely
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) if he has received a copy of the interim report of the observer programme, conducted on 370
  the United Kingdom drift net fishery for albacore tuna in the summer of 1995, under contract to his Ministry; if he will make a statement on the results; if he will place a copy of the report in the Library; [4040]

  (2) if he will make the results of the observer programme of the United Kingdom tuna drift net fishery available to the European Commission, and to the members of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, prior to their next meeting on 21 December; [4041]

  (3) if he will make a statement on results of the observer programme of the United Kingdom tuna drift net fishery in respect of (a) the by-catch of dolphins and other species and (b) the adequacy of current EU regulations, limiting drift nets to 2.5 km in length, to protect non-target species. [4045]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have just received and are studying an interim report by the sea mammals research unit of the Natural Environment Research Council on the UK's 1995 tuna drift net fishery. I will place a copy in the Library of the House together with the Ministry's analysis of it. The report will also be made available to the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.

  Drift Net Fishing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ban high seas drift nets in EU waters and by EU vessels at the next Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting. [4042]

  Mr. Baldry
  The European Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries has twice examined the science relating to drift net fishing by EU vessels and concluded that there is no justification for a ban. My policy will continue to be based on the science, including an interim report just received from the sea mammals research unit.

  School Milk Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the effect on the consumption of milk in(a) secondary schools and (b) primary schools, of EU subsidies on milk in secondary schools and on milk in school catering. [3381]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 30 November 1995]: We do not keep detailed figures on the consumption of subsidised milk in different categories of school. We estimate, however, that of the total expenditure under the EC school milk scheme in the United Kingdom, direct consumption in secondary schools accounts for about 15 per cent. and use as an ingredient in meals in both primary and secondary schools accounts for about 17 per cent.

  Alport Dale
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 28 November,Official Report, column 533 (1) on what date English Nature lodged its formal objection to Forest Enterprise's proposals for Alport dale; and on what date his Department was informed of the formal objection; [4276]
  371
  (2) on what dates the two letters objecting to the proposals by Forest Enterprise, for Alport dale were received by the Forestry Authority; and on what dates his Department was informed of the letters. [4278]

  Mr. Boswell
  The two letters objecting to the proposals by the Forest Enterprise for Alport dale were received by the Forestry Authority on 7 June and 15 August, and English Nature's formal objection was received on 17 August. The Forestry Commission reports directly to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on forestry matters in England.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Royal Fine Art Commission
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she will place in the Library the report of Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield into the Royal Fine Art Commission, together with his conclusions. [3666]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: Sir Geoffrey's report will be placed in the Library when we have completed the necessary consultations with other interested Departments and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come to conclusions on the recommendations. I hope this will be early in the new year.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many mobile telephones there are available in her Department for the use of Ministers. [4253]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has three mobile phones and two car phones available for the use of Ministers.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in her Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within her Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4254]

  Mr. Sproat
  None of the mobile phones used by Ministers or officials in my Department has been cloned.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3408]

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Royal Armouries, Leeds

  1.5

  2.0

  3.0

  6.0

  6.0

  1.5

  Hampton Court catering

  —

  —

  0.3

  1+0.17

  Positive annual return expected

  Dell Restaurant, Regents Park

  —

  —

  —

  0.14

  Positive annual return expected

  Lido, Hyde Park

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  Positive annual return expected

  Car Parking, Regents Park and Hyde Park

  —

  —

  —

  +0.275

  Positive annual return expected

  British Library IT equipment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Positive figures indicate that projects generate income rather than requiring continuing revenue support.

  372
  Mr. Sproat
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative does not result in changes to the policy of the Government on the PFI. Agreed schemes do, however, represent the application of the PFI policy and offer the opportunity to refine further the process of implementation. The lessons learnt are set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by the Treasury and the private finance panel, and a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current financial year and the next five financial years. [3829]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to table 6.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report, 1996–97", which was laid before the House on 28 November 1995.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative(a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3813]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The central Government contributions to the capital costs of projects so far agreed under the private finance initiative are as follows:

  £ million

  Royal Armouries, Leeds

  120.0

  Hampton Court catering

  0.3

  Dell Restaurant, Regents Park

  0.14

  Lido, Hyde Park

  0.3

  Car Parking, Regents Park and Hyde Park

  None

  British Library IT equipment

  None

  1 over financial years 1992–93 to 1997–98.

  There are no continuing revenue costs. Indeed, projects (2) to (5) above have generated, and will continue to generate, a positive annual return.

  All the projects were appraised in the normal way against other options, including wholly public funded alternatives, and represented best value for money.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3407]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 7 November 1995 at column 717 for the value of the initial and continuing public sector contributions to, and returns from, projects so far approved under the private finance initiative. The annual profile of these contributions and returns is as follows:
  373
  Today

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what date her Department first learned about the possible closure of Today newspaper; and what communications her Department had about this matter with News International. [4556]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department first learned about the possible closure of Today on Thursday, 16 November. My Department has not discussed any issues raised by the closure with News International.

  Sports Sponsorship
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the amount spent by tobacco companies on sport in each year since 1992 under the terms of the voluntary agreement. [3965]

  Mr. Sproat
  The latest figures available for the amount spent by tobacco companies on sports sponsorship are: £10,403,000 in 1992–93, and £7,576,000 in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total amount spent on sports sponsorship from all sources for each year since 1992. [3977]

  Mr. Sproat
  According to published reports, the total amount spent on sports sponsorship in the United Kingdom is estimated to have been £239 million in 1992, £250 million in 1993, and £265 million in 1994.

  Partnership Funding
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to allow the Sports Council to fund up to 100 per cent. of the capital project costs in the most economically deprived areas. [3784]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council can already make more substantial grant offers to schemes which are unable to raise the indicative 35 per cent. partnership funding. However, demonstrating the financial commitment of other parties to a project is a powerful expression of support for the scheme. Partnership funding means that more assistance can be offered to a larger number of applicants.

  Library Provision (Somerset)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the outcome of her Department's investigation of Somerset county council's library provision; what representations her Department has had on this subject since last January 1995; and if she will make a statement. [4015]

  Mr. Sproat
  Discussions between my officials and those of Somerset county councils continue, and I hope that it will be possible to resolve outstanding issues. I have received a small number of letters, principally from Somerset library users, about the situation.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, if she will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by her Department in each year since 1990, indicating the
  374
  purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3969]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department was established in April 1992 and took on responsibility for funding its own consultancies in August 1992.

  To list those consultants employed by my Department and its agencies and indicate their individual purposes would incur disproportionate costs. I am able to provide details of the total annual expenditure on outside consultancies incurred by my Department and its agencies during the last three financial years.

  1992–93: £4,239,207

  1993–94: £6,003,317

  1994–95: £2,746,028.

  To list all those outside organisations employed by my Department and its agencies with an indication of their individual purpose would require a large exercise, incurring disproportionate costs.

  For individuals employed by my Department, I refer the hon. Member to the copies of the civil service staff post summary tables, copies of which can be found in the House Libraries. These individuals are employed to assist the Department and its agencies to achieve their aims and objectives as set out in the annual departmental report.

  Red Hot Television
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what factors have led to the delay in concluding the case before the European Court of Justice between Her Majesty's Government and the broadcaster, Red Hot Television; and when she expects the case to be concluded. [3987]

  Mr. Sproat
  The case has been unable to proceed because the first and second applicants do not have solicitors on the record and the third applicant cannot be traced. The papers are at present before a judge of the Queen's Bench divisional court in London with a view to concluding the matter.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implementation of the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 that affect war widows' pensions. [3191]

  Mr. Heald
  These are matters for John Sheppard, the acting chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Sheppard to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 5 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the implementation of the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995, that affect War Widows Pensions.375 It was estimated that there would be in the order of 16500 awards of War Widows Pension under these provisions. As at 1 December, 11152 claims have been received. Decisions have been made in 6834 cases, of which 2229 have been notified and 1487 pensions paid. It is expected that the exercise will be completed by March.I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total amount of money in each of the last five years claimed back by the Benefits Agency from insurance companies in relation to invalidity benefit paid as a result of injuries caused by road traffic accidents. [4346]

  Mr. Burt
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Harriet Harman, dated 6 December 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the total amount of money in each of the last five years claimed back by the Benefits Agency from insurance companies in relation to invalidity benefit paid as a result of injuries caused by road traffic accidents.The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  Amount(£ million)

  1990–91

  0.44

  1991–92

  3.16

  1992–93

  6.86

  1993–94

  12.49

  1994–95

  18.99

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants to the social fund have been turned down on the grounds of ability to pay by year and by region since the fund's inception; and what percentage of the total applying this figure represented in each case. [2083]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The figures requested are set out in the tables.

  Year

  Total number of applications

  Numbers refused on the grounds of inability to repay

  Numbers refused as a percentage of applications

  Great Britain

  1988–89

  1,749,000

  15,020

  0.85

  1989–90

  2,299,000

  22,270

  0.96

  1990–91

  2,317,000

  27,053

  1.17

  1991–92

  3,098,000

  37,213

  1.20

  1992–93

  3,519,000

  45,491

  1.29

  1993–94

  3,673,000

  44,179

  1.20

  1994–95

  3,744,000

  12,303

  0.33

  Scotland and northern territory

  1991–92

  1,071,689

  13,711

  1.28

  1992–93

  1,152,777

  17,368

  1.50

  1993–94

  1,200,819

  12,979

  1.08

  1994–95

  1,241,496

  2,873

  0.23

  376

  Year

  Total number of applications

  Numbers refused on the grounds of inability to repay

  Numbers refused as a Percentage of applications

  Wales and central territory

  1991–92

  1,118,867

  10,455

  0.93

  1992–93

  1,274,702

  14,545

  1.14

  1993–94

  1,298,118

  14,589

  1.12

  1994–95

  1,304,981

  4,223

  0.32

  Southern territory

  1991–92

  907,155

  13,047

  1.44

  1992–93

  1,091,903

  13,578

  1.24

  1993–94

  1,173,511

  16,611

  1.42

  1994–95

  1,197,571

  5,207

  20.43

  Information by region prior to the creation of the Benefits Agency in April 1991 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Executive Agencies (Overseas Travel)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of his executive agencies for the last financial year in respect of overseas travel by staff of the agency(a) the cost, (b) the countries visited and (c) the posts held by the staff involved. [2357]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Cost of overseas travel—April 1994 to March 1995

  £

  Benefits Agency

  871,753

  Child Support Agency

  432,941

  Resettlement Agency

  10,980

  Contributions Agency

  36,618

  War Pensions Agency

  13,224

  Information Technology Services Agency

  240,563

  The principal countries visited, in order of the greatest number of journeys undertaken, were:

  Luxembourg

  Republic of Ireland

  Belgium

  France

  The Netherlands

  Switzerland

  Australia

  United States of America

  Germany.

  Fine Defaulters
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions a deduction in income support was applied for in cases of those defendants who were gaoled for fine default in 1994. [3441]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is not available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefits were claimed in Bournemouth in 1989–90 and 1994–95. [3442]
  377
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is set out in the table.

  Average number of housing benefit recipients in the Bournemouth local authority area during 1989–90 and 1994–95

  Year

  Number of recipients

  1989–90

  11,900

  1994–95

  15,500

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly caseload counts.

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to the number of benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The figure for 1989–90 excludes those recipients of rate rebate only.

  3. Figures are an average of the four quarterly caseload counts taken in May, August, November and February of the above financial years.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3401]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department has agreed one project to date under the private finance initiative, to develop a new national insurance recording system. Revenue costs for each year of the agreed contract have not yet been finalised and are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3402]

  Mr. Burt
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative has not resulted in changes to policy. Agreed schemes represent the application of the PFI policy and offer the opportunity to further refine the processes involved. The lessons learned are set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by HM Treasury and the private finance panel, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Benefit Rates
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes(a) have been made and (b) are planned in the amount paid in (i) the £75 limit on additional funeral expenses connected with a person's religion, (ii) the £2,500 exempt payments limit in the compensation recovery scheme and (iii) the £3,000 vaccine damage payment. [4125]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  No changes have been made to the £75 limit on additional funeral expenses arising from a requirement of the religious faith of the deceased, and none are planned.

  Since the introduction of the compensation recovery scheme in 1990, no changes have been made to the small payments limit of £2,500.

  A consultation document was published in October to assess the implications of possible changes to the compensation recovery scheme as proposed by the Social Security Select Committee. One issue discussed in this
  378
  document is the future of the small payments limit. The Government are now considering the responses to the consultation exercise, and will announce their decision in due course.

  The vaccine damage payments scheme began on 22 March 1979 when the payment was set at £10,000. The payment has subsequently been increased twice: to £20,000 on claims made on or after 16 August 1985 and to £30,000 on claims made on or after 15 April 1991. Whilst the value of the payment is reviewed periodically, there are no plans to change it at this time.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4247]

  Mr. Burt
  I am the only DSS Minister who has had his mobile telephone cloned in the last 18 months.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4248]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department of Social Security has six Ministers, each of whom has a mobile telephone. Additionally, four ministerial cars have telephones.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total amount paid by his Department to consultants in connection with the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance; [4585]

  (2) which firms of consultants were employed by his Department in connection with the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [4584]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Department of Social Security has paid £2,224,000 through the Benefits Agency to consultants in connection with the introduction of jobseeker's allowance. The company used was Andersen Consulting.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent change there has been in take-up of disability allowance. [5235]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  In the 12 months to October 1995, the disability working allowance case load increased by 56 per cent. to 6,895.

  The number of new and repeat claims for October 1995 was 2,245. This compares with 1,471 for October 1994.

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were performed in 1994 on women(a) resident in each health region and (b) in

  379
  each district health authority without overnight stay; and how many of these operations involved NHS hospitals, NHS agency arrangements and other purchasers. [4105]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested for 1994 will be placed in the Library. For reason of confidentiality, statistics for district health authorities are presented by DHA of woman's usual residence, not by DHA of termination.

  Mrs. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost per NHS abortion without overnight stay, involving (a) NHS hospitals and(b) NHS agency arrangements. [4107]

  Mr. Horam
  The estimated average cost of a surgical abortion without overnight stay in a national health service hospital is £175, at 1993–94 figures. No information is available centrally about the cost of abortions performed in the private sector under NHS agency arrangements.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the NHS of a hip replacement. [2683]

  Mr. Horam
  The cost of individual procedures is not available centrally.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) evaluated and (b)commissioned into the amount of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide in tobacco products other than manufactured cigarettes; if he will list the available data; and if he will make a statement. [3979]

  Mr. Horam
  On behalf of the Department of Health, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist has carried out research on the tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide content of hand-rolling tobaccos. A report on this work is in the course of preparation and will be submitted for publication in an appropriate scientific journal.

  NHS Land
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts and health authorities that have sold or leased land in 1995–96, indicating the amount of money received in each case, the purchaser and the total amount of money received in England from the sale and leasing of NHS land. [4083]

  Mr. Horam
  Information about total land sales in-year is not available centrally from national health service trusts. The information requested would be available only from the published accounts of each trust and health authority following their end of year. The name of the purchaser, and the amount of each sale and rental information is not available centrally.

  Influenza
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency plans his Department has considered for dealing with a flu epidemic; and to what conclusion they have come. [4182]
  380
  Mr. Horam
  Heavy demand on the national health service, whether from natural causes or man-made, is always a possibility and the NHS is required to have contingency plans in place to deal with such incidents and to exercise plans regularly. The weekly rate of influenza infection is monitored by the Royal College of General Practitioners clinical research unit and, if needed, an alert can be issued to public health doctors via the Epinet system.

  The Department of Health regularly takes steps to protect those most at risk from influenza by the provision of advice about who is most at risk from serious complications arising from the disease and who should therefore receive influenza vaccine. This year doctors were reminded during the summer of the need to plan their influenza vaccination campaign, which was launched in October.

  The Department has also produced a leaflet called "What should I do about flu?" which provides information on how to cope with the disease. Copies were sent to all GPs and made available through Post Offices and copies are available in the Library. We have also produced a video advert about the leaflet, which was shown in post offices.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 522, on hospital discharges if he will provide comparable figures for (a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93. [4287]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Destination of discharge of patients treated by consultants in geriatric medicine in NHS hospitals in England

  Percentage

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Usual residence

  68.79

  67.60

  68.78

  Deaths

  19.35

  17.69

  17.52

  NHS hospital outside district— general ward/younger physically disabled

  1.36

  4.90

  5.20

  Non-NHS institution

  4.29

  4.66

  4.57

  Local authority residential home

  1.85

  1.68

  1.59

  Temporary residence e.g. hotels, residential educational institutions

  1.73

  1.56

  1.43

  NHS hospital outside district—mentally ill/handicapped ward

  0.06

  0.26

  0.30

  NHS nursing home

  0.00

  0.05

  0.22

  Not known

  2.47

  1.42

  0.25

  Special hospital

  0.09

  0.15

  0.12

  Figures do not total 100 due to rounding.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available for the treatment of all forms of acute mental illness but excluding beds involving learning disabilities, in each year since 1988–89; what was the number of finished consultant episodes in acute mental illnesses for the same years; and how many patients with acute mental illness were treated in those years. [4314]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of beds available for the treatment of acute mental illness in each year since 1988–89 is shown in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds for acute mental illness for all ages

  England

  Year

  Number

  1988–89

  22,505

  1989–90

  22,754

  1990–91

  22,427

  1991–92

  22,159

  1992–93

  21,652

  1993–94

  21,447

  1994–95

  22,101

  Notes:

  1. Information held centrally on the number of National Health Service mental illness beds does not include the classification "acute". It does, however, differentiate between "long-stay" and "short-stay". "Acute mental illness" has therefore been interpreted as "short-stay" mental illness.

  2. Date is collected by broad ward classification rather than by clinical specialty and returns are made on a financial year, ie April to March, basis.

  Source:

  Department of Health KH03 returns.

  The number of finished consultant episodes in mental illness in each year since 1988– 89 is shown in the table.

  Finished consultant episodes for mental illness—ordinary admissions and day cases combined:

  England

  Year

  Number (thousands)

  1988–89

  216.3

  1989–90

  215.9

  1990–91

  219.9

  1991–92

  221.3

  1992–93

  234.1

  1993–94

  237.3

  1994–95

  239.0

  Notes:

  1. Information held centrally on finished consultant episodes does not include the classification "acute mental illness". It does, however, include the classification "mental illness".

  2. The definition of a "consultant episode" is the period that a patient spends under the continuous care of a specific consultant in a specific health care provider (which may be in more than one hospital within that health care provider). A hospital provider spell can comprise one or more consultant episodes. For example, a patient may be admitted under the care of a general physician and then be transferred to the care of a surgeon. This would count as two consultant episodes within a single hospital provider spell.

  Source:

  Department of Health KP70 returns.

  Information of the number of patients is not available centrally.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, column 521, on nursing homes, what information his Department maintains on trust-run registered nursing homes. [4288]

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Sterilisation
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women in England are sterilised annually, by standard census age group. [4104]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available in respect to national health service hospital admissions is shown in the table.

  Estimated number of ordinary and day case admissions, principal operation—male and female sterlisation—in NHS hospitals in England—1993–94

  Ages

  Male

  Female

  0-4

  8

  4

  5-14

  12

  0

  15-44

  33,774

  52,141

  45-64

  2,663

  1,119

  65-74

  16

  0

  75-84

  4

  4

  85 and over

  12

  0

  Not known

  59

  19

  All Ages

  36,548

  53,287

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3393]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I him on 6 December, column 224.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3394]

  Mr. Horam
  This Government's policy is that high-quality health care should be available to those who need it on the basis of their clinical need without regard to their ability to pay. The private finance initiative in the national health service is concerned with the provision of modern and efficient facilities for the delivery of NHS health care. There have been no policy changes arising from the agreement of PFI schemes.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4269]
  383
  Mr. Horam
  During the past 12 months, there have been two instances of cloned telephone numbers affecting the mobile telephone of the then Under-Secretary of State for Health. The Department is not liable for any payment of charges arising from cloned telephone numbers.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4270]

  Mr. Horam
  There are 25 mobile telephones available to departmental private office for the use of Ministers and staff including four telephones fitted in ministerial cars.

  Buckinghamshire County Council (Resources)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the special transitional grant and the social services standard spending assessment available to Buckinghamshire county council in each financial year from 1993–94 to 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [4697]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table. Total resources available to Buckinghamshire county council for personal social services next year will be 35 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1993–94.

  Resources for personal social services Buckinghamshire county council

  £million

  Standard spending assessment

  Special transitional grant for community care

  1993–94

  45.920

  4.268

  1994–95

  55.524

  7.177

  1995–96

  62.001

  6.515

  1996–97

  68.723

  4.179

  Figures for 1996–97 are provisional, issued for consultation.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the non-white proportion of(a) the electorate of London, (b) the population of London as a whole and (c) the population of London under the age of 16 years. [4595]

  Mr. Horam
  The electorial register does not give an indication of the ethnic group of electors, but information on people of voting age is shown in the table, together with the other information requested.

  Age group within Greater London Private household Population

  Estimated Percentage of People in ethnic groups other than White during Period June 1994 to May 1995

  Aged 18 or over

  19.2

  Age under 16

  33.8

  All ages

  22.5

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arms Decommissioning
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the number and type of illegally held firearms and ordnance and the percentage which would have to be decommissioned in order for all-party talks to commence. [3041]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The security forces maintain information on illegal weapons holdings and supplies, but it would not be appropriate to make this public. There must be a credible and verifiable start to the process of decommissioning, sufficient to create the necessary circumstances of confidence for all-party round table talks to commence.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which groups in Northern Ireland have expressed their support for the decommissioning of arms as a precondition for the commencement of all-party talks on the political future of Northern Ireland. [3047]

  Mr. Ancram
  The position of the individual groups on the decommissioning issue is a matter for them.

  The Government's position is that we cannot see a way in which to secure the necessary confidence to bring all parties to the negotiating table without a start being made to the decommissioning of illegal arms.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on achieving the decommissioning of arms; and if he will make a statement. [3051]

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the establishment of a disarmament commission to deal with the disposal of illegal weapons in Northern Ireland. [3053]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what quantity of arms has to date been decommissioned by Republican terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. [3036]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There have been no illegally held arms or equipment decommissioned to date. However, as the House will be aware, the British and Irish Governments announced on 28 November that they have agreed to establish an international body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue. That body has now been established and has been asked to report to the two Governments by mid-January 1996.

  Peace Process
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on co-operation with the Irish Government to promote peace in Northern Ireland. [3042]

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the Government's twin-track approach to the Northern Ireland peace. [3049]
  385
  Mr. Barnes
  To the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest position concerning the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [3052]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott), for Bolsver (Mr. Skinner), for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Neath (Mr. Hain).

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about furthering the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [3046]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have had numerous recent discussions about furthering the peace process with the Tanaiste, and with the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties. Final negotiations between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach led to agreement and publication on 28 November of the two Governments' proposals for a twin-track process.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects all-party talks to commence on the future constitution of Northern Ireland. [3050]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  As stated in the joint communique issued by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach on 28 November 1995, which announced the "twin track" process, our firm aim is to launch all-party negotiations by the end of February 1996. We believe that, with co-operation from all the relevant parties in both tracks, this should prove achievable.

  West Link Junctions
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the timetable for construction of flyovers at west link junctions. [3043]

  Mr. Moss
  Schemes to provide flyovers at the Grosvenor road and Broadway junctions are included in the Department's six to 15 year major road works programme. However, the possibility of carrying out such schemes under the private finance initiative is currently being explored and this may lead to their earlier implementation.

  Army Strength
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence about future Army strength in Northern Ireland. [3044]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Army force levels in support of the RUC are an operational matter for the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding. I discuss such matters with the Secretary of State for Defence as appropriate and in the light of advice from the chief Constable and the GOC.

  Extradition (Fraud)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average time taken to obtain the extradition from the United States of America to Northern Ireland of a person suspected of having committed fraud after directions to prosecute have been issued in the United Kingdom. [3054]
  386
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  There are no records of any such extraditions having been sought.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many statutory instruments have been passed through Parliament as a result of European Community directives in the past year. [3055]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not directly sponsored any statutory instruments through Parliament as a result of European Community directives in the past year.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the most recent figures in respect of the level of inward investment into Northern Ireland. [3056]

  Mr. Ancram
  So far this year, the industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland has announced 11 inward investment projects which offer the prospect of 3,655 new jobs.

  EU Funds
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the standards of financial accountability in regard to funds allocated to Northern Ireland through the European Union. [3057]

  Sir John Wheeler
  All structural expenditure which is borne on the votes of Northern Ireland Departments is subject to the normal requirements of government accounting and to audit by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and by the European Court of Auditors. I am satisfied that the standard of financial accountability in regard to EU funds is satisfactory and we will continue to operate procedures which seek to safeguard the taxpayers' interest.

  Social Housing
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the provision of social housing in Northern Ireland for the current year. [3058]

  Mr. Moss
  The numbers of new public and voluntary sector dwellings which were completed in Northern Ireland from 1 April 1995 to 31 October 1995 were as follows:

  Number

  Northern Ireland housing executive (Public Sector)

  809

  Registered housing associations (Voluntary Sector)

  680

  Total

  1,489

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment
  387
  entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3405]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No scheme under the private finance initiative, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1992, have been approved in Northern Ireland to date.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3406]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No schemes under the private finance initiative, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 1992, have been approved in Northern Ireland to date. A range of projects across all Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office are under consideration. It is too early, however, to identify any policy changes which might arise from projects agreed under the initiative.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made with the privatisation of trust ports. [3048]

  Mr. Moss
  The Ports (Northern Ireland) Order came into effect on 2 January 1995. This measure enables the Northern Ireland trust ports to bring forward privatisation schemes. It also provides reserve powers for the Department to initiate the privatisation of a port with a turnover in excess of £5 million, but these powers are not exercisable until two years after the order came into effect.

  Police (Community Involvement)
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he is planning to enhance community identification with policing in Northern Ireland. [3033]

  Sir John Wheeler
  We will publish shortly proposals for legislative reforms, to increase the ability of the community, through the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to shape the future direction of policing. The RUC, the Police Authority and the Government are also undertaking a fundamental review of policing needs, services and organisation, with community identification at its core.

  Access Rights (Grandmothers)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will study the issue of grandmothers' rights of access, in the light of Northern Ireland Office decisions on custody in relation to the case of Mrs. Vint, and Mr. Vint of Longridge in the Linlithgow constituency. [3045]

  Mr. Moss
  Decisions on the custody of children and access by relatives are solely a matter for the courts. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment on this particular case.

WALES

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what savings have been delivered by compulsory competitive tendering. [2655]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally. However, researchers at the university of Birmingham investigated the financial impact of compulsory competitive tendering in the first three years—1989 to 1992—of competition under the Local Government Act 1988. They identified overall savings of 7 per cent. for local authorities in England and Wales across the service areas defined by the legislation, with variations by service area.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of Forestry Commission woodland in Wales have been sold since October 1991; and, of these, how many hectares(a) remain open to the public and (b) have been closed to the public since October 1991. [3722]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Forestry Commission has sold 5,400 hectares of forest land in Wales since October 1991. The commission does not maintain records of public access to woodlands which it has sold.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the amount of cash needed to eliminate disrepair in local education authority schools in each of the local education authorities of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [4021]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I have made no such estimate. Local education authorities are responsible for the repair and maintenance of their school buildings.

  Attendance Allowances
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage change in attendance allowances between 1994–95 and 1995–96 for each local authority in Wales; and for each local authority, which political party is in control. [3795]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office does not collect or hold information in respect of attendance allowances set by local authorities. With regard to the political control on each existing county and district council, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dover on 16 February. For the 22 unitary authorities elected on 4 May 1995, the latest information held by the Welsh Office is set out in the following table:

  Local authority

  Political control

  Aberconwy and Colwyn County Borough

  No overall control

  Anglesey County

  Independent

  Blaenau Gwent County Borough

  Labour

  Bridgend County Borough

  Labour

  Caernarfonshire and Merioneshire County

  Plaid Cymru

  389

  Local authority

  political control

  Caerphilly County Borough

  Labour

  Cardiff County

  Labour

  Cardiganshire County

  Independent

  Carmarthenshire County

  Labour with minority

  Denbighshire County

  No overall control

  Flintshire County

  Labour

  Merthyr Tydfil County Borough

  Labour

  Monmouthshire County

  Labour

  Neath and Port Talbot County Borough

  Labour

  Newport county Borough

  Labour

  Pembrokeshire County

  Independent

  Powys County

  No political groups declared

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff County Borough

  Labour

  Torfaen County Borough

  Labour

  Swansea County

  Labour

  The Vale of Glamorgan County Borough

  Labour

  Wrexham County Borough

  Labour

  Hansard Volumn 254 Columns 761 and 762.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3955]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of management and other consultants since 1990–91 have been placed in the Library of the House. Information on other outside organisations is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of the number of staff employed in the Welsh Office, staff costs and the Department's aims and objectives are given in the Welsh Office departmental report for 1995 (Cm 2815).

  Work (Young People)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what new measures he will adopt to get 18 to 24-year-old people into work; and if he will make a statement. [3857]

  Mr. Richards
  Young people up to the age of 25 can benefit from youth training, youth credits, modern apprenticeships and accelerated apprenticeships. They can also receive support under training for work and a range of other measures available through the Employment Service. The Department will continue to work with training and enterprise councils to meet the needs of these young people.

  Roads
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet(a) Buckley town council, (b) Alyn and Deeside council and (c) the senior councillors and officials of the shadow county authority of Flintshire to discuss his policies concerning road building in Wales. [4018]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to do so. Policies for road building are set out in the transport chapter of the Welsh Office's departmental report (Cm 2815) published on 9 March 1995. I will announce roads and transport expenditure plans for 1996–97 shortly.

  Housing Developments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will meet residents of Liverpool road, Buckley, Clwyd, to discuss his planning policies as they affect applications to build new housing estates where there is only one access road; and if he will make a statement. [4022]

  Mr. Hague
  No. The determination of applications for planning permission is in the first place the responsibility of the local planning authority concerned. The local planning authority will need to have regard to, among other things, the series of planning policy guidance—PPG—notes, including PPG13, "Highways Considerations in Development Control", which incorporates guidance on access.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he plans to adopt to get the long-term unemployed into work. [3860]

  Mr. Richards
  The training and enterprise councils in Wales and the Employment Service continue to provide a range of measures to help the long-term unemployed back into work. These include training for work and services such as client advice, job club, work trials and the job interview guarantee scheme offered by the Employment Service. In addition, North West Wales and Gwent training and enterprise councils, in partnership with the Employment Service, are piloting the sole traders employment initiative which helps sole traders to take on their first employee from among the long-term unemployed.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration is being given to a change in the development area status of Swansea. [3798]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 21 November 1995 by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Trade and Industry,Official Report, column 77.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many 18 to 24-year-old people there are in each of the constituencies in Wales. [3858]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information for each parliamentary constituency is from the 1991 census of population, and is given in the following table:

  Residents aged 18 to 24

  Number

  Aberavon

  5,983

  Alyn and Deeside

  8,346

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,459

  Brecon and Radnor

  5,457

  Bridgend

  6,983

  Caernarfon

  5,666

  Caerphilly

  8,572

  Cardiff Central

  9,970

  Cardiff North

  5,846

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  8,203

  391

  Residents aged 18 to 24

  Number

  Cardiff West

  7,907

  Carmarthen

  7,452

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  6,880

  Clwyd North West

  7,454

  Clwyd South West

  7,663

  Conwy

  6,289

  Cynon Valley

  6,613

  Delyn

  8,043

  Gower

  6,303

  Islwyn

  6,833

  Llanelli

  7,308

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  3,648

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  7,909

  Monmouth

  6,450

  Montgomery

  4,851

  Neath

  6,655

  Newport East

  7,109

  Newport West

  7,640

  Ogmore

  7,477

  Pembroke

  8,844

  Pontypridd

  8,700

  Rhondda

  7,691

  Swansea East

  7,740

  Swansea West

  7,397

  Torfaen

  8,260

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8,908

  Wrexham

  8,630

  Ynys Mon

  6,689

  Source:

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recent figures for(a) gross domestic product per capita and (b) the average wage in (i) Wales and (ii) each standard English planning regions. [4295]

  Mr. Hague
  The most recent figures for gross domestic product per capita in Wales and the English regions are for 1993. They are published in table 1, page 26 of the December 1994 edition of "Economic Trends". Figures for average earnings in Wales and the English regions are available for April 1995 and are published in table X5.3, part A, "New Earnings Survey 1995". Copies of these publications are in the Library of the House.

  Employment of Children
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the organisations and individuals he has consulted on the consultation document "Employment of Children". [4534]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The consultation paper, "Employment of Children" was sent on 30 October to the 24 organisation in Wales listed as follows:

  Assembly of Welsh Counties

  British Medical Association, Wales

  Children in Wales

  Church in Wales, Board of Social Responsibility

  Clybiau Plant Cymru

  Confederation of British Industry, Wales

  Council of Welsh Districts

  CYTUN (Churches Together in Wales), Commissions on Wales and the World)

  392

  Education Welfare Officers (all Wales group)

  Equal Opportunities Commission, Wales

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Health Promotion, Wales

  Health Visitors Association, Wales region

  Merched y Wawr

  National Association of Social Workers in Education, Wales

  National Federation of Women's Institutes, Wales

  National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Wales

  Royal College of General Practitioners, Wales

  Royal College of Nursing, Welsh Board

  Sports Council for Wales

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Wales Trades Union Congress

  Wales Youth Agency

  Welsh Consumer Council.

  Road Bridges
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of the use of 41-tonne lorries on road bridges; and how many currently need to be strengthened. [3370]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Of the 1,345 bridges on the trunk road network in Wales, 585 have been identified as requiring assessment, 424 have been assessed and 149 of these have been identified as requiring strengthening. The remaining 161 will be assessed, and all necessary strengthening programmed before 1 January 1999. Local authorities are responsible for bridges on non-trunk roads.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in favour of a full house condition survey; if he will make it his policy to arrange for a new survey to be carried out without imposing administrative expenses on local councils; and if he will make a statement. [3392]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have received representations from the Council of Welsh Districts and a number of local authorities about a further Welsh house condition survey. My right hon. Friend and I are currently considering the position.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases; [3411]

  (2) if he will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3412]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 November 1995,Official Report, column 808.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4261]
  393
  Mr. Hague
  Three mobile phones are directly allocated to Welsh Office Ministers. They also have access to car phones in five official vehicles.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department had been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers in his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4262]

  Mr. Hague
  (a) once, 28 September, (b) once further, 26 March 1995, and (c) nil; the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ashford Project
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the terms of reference agreed with the Church Commissioners for the review the Audit Committee is undertaking on Church Commission Projects Ltd. (Ashford great park). [4590]

  Mr. Alison
  The terms of reference for the review set by the Audit Committee are:

  1. To review the origins of the Ashford project.

  2. To examine the information made available to the Commissioners (including by whom and when) on the basis of which a decision to go ahead with the project was taken.

  3. To consider the extent to which the outturn of the project to date has differed from the original projections (and why).

  4. To report on the details of the amount so far spent on the project, to whom monies were paid and whether there is any scope for recovery of abortive expenditure.

  5. To report on the results of the investigation including reference to any other relevant matters which may become apparent as part of the review.

  Closed Investment Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what factors underlie the Church Commissioners' operation of a closed fund. [4588]

  Mr. Alison
  The Church Commissioners have two principal tasks in the operation of their closed investment fund: first to optimise returns over the long term from their investments within appropriate risk management controls; secondly, to set a level of distribution in support of the Church's ministry which is sustainable.

  Other factors which underlie the commissioners' operation in pursuit of these aims are their responsibilities to make additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes, a trust inherited from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to augment the maintenance of the poor clergy, inherited from the Queen Anne's bounty—their liabilities under the Clergy Pensions Measures; their other statutory obligations and their recognition of their partnership with parishes and dioceses who, increasingly, provide from giving for the maintenance of the Church's nationwide ministry. Without that giving, it could not be sustained.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Universities (Managers)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to increase universities access to high-quality management expertise. [3991]

  Mr. Forth
  Universities are responsible for taking their own decisions on management matters. They, like other employers, can benefit from the use of the national occupational standards for managers. These represent best practice by managers at all levels and form the basis for national vocational qualifications.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's estimate of the total outstanding student loan debt in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000. [4048]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department's estimates, to the nearest million, for the United Kingdom are:

  Financial year-end

  £ million

  1995–96

  1,940

  1996–97

  2,929

  1997–98

  4,012

  1998–99

  5,077

  The Department does not hold figures for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list projected(a) gross student loan and outlay and (b) student loan repayments in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000. [4053]

  Mr. Forth
  The estimated UK figures are:

  £ million

  Financial year

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Loan outlay

  1,013.0

  1,145.8

  1,200.5

  Loan repayments (principal and interest)

  100.2

  154.3

  244.7

  The Department does not hold figures for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the cumulative total expenditure on computer systems for the administration of student loans by the Student Loans Company since 1990 in current prices; and what are the constituent parts of this sum. [3924]

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement effect of the
  395
  introduction of subsidised private sector loans in 1996–97 and each relevant year thereafter. [4047]

  Mr. Forth
  The extent of any overall reduction in public expenditure arising from the introduction of subsidised private sector loans to students will depend on what arrangements are made with the financial institutions and the extent to which students take out loans made under them. The plans announced at the time of the Budget made the following provisional assumptions about net savings.

  £ million

  1996–97

  100

  1997–98

  200

  1998–99

  250

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the meetings she or officials in her Department have had with(a) the Student Loans Company, (b) representatives of students and higher education institutions and (c) hon. Members regarding proposed reforms to the provision of student loans indicating the date of each meeting. [3926]

  Mr. Forth
  As I informed the hon. Gentleman during the Second Reading debate on 27 November,Official Report, column 954, I have personally spoken to the chairman and the chief executive of the Student Loans Company about our plans on two occasions. The first was on 16 August and the second on 19 September. My officials met with representatives of the company on

  Maintenance grants, loans and allowances

  £

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Grants and loans

  Main grant rates

  London

  2,845

  3,399

  2,845

  3,216

  2,845

  3,092

  2,845

  2,993

  2,560

  2,640

  2,340

  2,340

  Elsewhere

  2,265

  2,706

  2,265

  2,560

  2,265

  2,461

  2,265

  2,383

  2,040

  2,103

  1,885

  1,885

  Parental home

  1,795

  2,144

  1,795

  2,029

  1,795

  1,951

  1,795

  1,889

  1,615

  1,665

  1,530

  1,530

  Main loan rates (full year)

  London

  460

  549

  660

  746

  830

  902

  940

  989

  1,375

  1,418

  1,695

  1,695

  Elsewhere

  420

  502

  580

  656

  715

  777

  800

  842

  1,150

  1,186

  1,385

  1,385

  Parental home

  330

  394

  460

  520

  570

  619

  640

  673

  915

  943

  1,065

  1,065

  other allowances

  Dependant child allowance

  Aged under 11

  320

  382

  340

  384

  355

  386

  370

  389

  385

  397

  395

  395

  Aged 11 to 15

  640

  765

  680

  769

  710

  772

  735

  773

  765

  789

  785

  785

  Aged 16 or 17

  845

  1,009

  895

  1,012

  935

  1,016

  970

  1,021

  1,010

  1,041

  1,035

  1,035

  Aged 18 or over

  1,215

  1,451

  1,290

  1,458

  1,350

  1,467

  1,400

  1,473

  1,460

  1,505

  1,495

  1,495

  Other dependants allowance

  1,525

  1,822

  1,615

  1,825

  1,690

  1,836

  1,750

  1,841

  1,820

  1,877

  1,865

  1,865

  396
  7 August, 16 October, 18 October and 20 October for discussions. This is in addition to their usual contacts with the company which provide frequent opportunities for discussion.

  My officials have also invited representatives of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the National Union of Students in to discuss our proposals. The meeting with the CVCP was constructive. The NUS has not yet replied.

  No meetings were held with hon. Members prior to the First Reading of the Bill.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the(a) maintenance grant, (b) student loan and (c) allowances available to students aged (i) 26, (ii) 27, (iii) 28, (iv) 29 to 50 and (v) 50 years or over in each year since 1990–91, both in cash prices and current prices. [4323]

  Mr. Forth
  Data on the main mandatory grant and student loan rates are shown in the following table. The allowances shown are available in addition to the main rates of grant. The amounts shown in the "current" columns have been calculated in 1995–96 prices using the September retail prices indices, excluding mortgage interest payments, at the start of each academic year.

  Student loans are not available to those who have attained the age of 50 before the date on which they begin their course. The older student's allowance is available according to the age of the student before the start of his course and provided that he meets the relevant earnings test. It is not available to most students who start their course on or after 1 September 1995.
  397

  Maintenance grants, loans and allowances

  £

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Cash

  Current

  Disabled students allowance

  Non-medical helper

  4,000

  4,778

  4,240

  4,792

  4,430

  4,814

  4,550

  4,787

  4,730

  4,877

  4,850

  4,850

  Specialist equipment

  3,000

  3,584

  3,180

  3,594

  3,325

  3,613

  3,420

  3,598

  3,560

  3,671

  3,650

  3,650

  Other

  1,000

  1,195

  1,060

  1,198

  1,110

  1,206

  1,140

  1,199

  1,185

  1,222

  1,215

  1,215

  Extra weeks allowance

  London

  63.15

  75.44

  66.30

  74.94

  69.30

  75.31

  71.20

  74.92

  74.05

  76.35

  75.90

  75.90

  Elsewhere

  47.30

  56.50

  49.65

  56.12

  51.90

  56.40

  53.30

  56.08

  55.45

  57.17

  56.85

  56.85

  Parental home

  33.15

  39.60

  34.80

  39.33

  36.40

  39.55

  37.40

  39.35

  38.90

  40.11

  39.85

  39.85

  Older students allowance

  Aged 26

  250

  299

  265

  300

  280

  304

  290

  305

  300

  309

  310

  310

  Aged 27

  455

  544

  480

  543

  500

  543

  515

  542

  535

  552

  550

  550

  Aged 28

  675

  806

  715

  808

  750

  815

  770

  810

  800

  825

  820

  820

  Aged 29 or over

  880

  1,051

  935

  1,057

  980

  1,065

  1,005

  1,057

  1,045

  1,077

  1,070

  1,070

  College Fees Payments
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is(a) the total recurrent grant and (b) the amount by which the recurrent grant has been reduced in recognition of college fees payment, for each university with recognised collegiate status in the current academic year; [4312]

  (2) what is the total value of college fees payment to each university with recognised collegiate status in the current academic year; [4320]

  (3) what is the current level of college fees reimbursed through the student's mandatory award in each of the colleges of universities which have recognised collegiate structures. [4313]

  Mr. Forth
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England determines the total recurrent grant and the amounts by which the recurrent grant is reduced in recognition of college fees payments at each of these universities. The total recurrent grant and the amount by which it has been reduced in the current academic year are given as follows for each collegiate university in England.

  1995–96 (£)

  Recurrent grant

  Reduction

  Cambridge

  85,435,264

  11,475,844

  Durham

  29,136,143

  172,150

  Kent

  19,539,798

  105,798

  Lancaster

  25,244,075

  143,796

  Oxford

  82,561,694

  13,419,264

  York

  20,565,594

  90,244

  The HEFCE estimated the total value of college fees paid to the colleges of these universities to be as follows:

  £

  Cambridge

  28,689,610

  Durham

  1,223,208

  Kent

  736,230

  398

  £

  Lancaster

  1,132,250

  Oxford

  31,207,591

  York

  643,200

  The current maximum levels of college fees reimbursed through a student's mandatory award in each of the colleges of the collegiate universities are shown.

  £

  Cambridge colleges

  Christ's College

  2,622

  Churchill College

  2,634

  Clare College

  2,640

  Clare Hall

  2,553

  Corpus Christi College

  2,706

  Darwin College

  2,667

  Downing College

  2,769

  Emanuel College

  2,652

  Fitzwilliam College

  2,784

  Girton College

  2,688

  Gonville and Caius College

  2,646

  Hughes Hall

  2,610

  Jesus College

  2,670

  King's College

  2,613

  Lucy Cavendish College

  2,715

  Magdelene College

  2,769

  New Hall

  2,763

  Newnham College

  2,757

  Pembroke College

  2,760

  Peterhouse

  2,607

  Queen's College

  2,727

  Robinson College

  2,739

  St. Catherine's College

  2,688

  St. Edmunds College

  2,571

  St. John's College

  2,574

  Selwyn College

  2,757

  Sidney Sussex College

  2,757

  Trinity College

  2,550

  Trinity Hall

  2,706

  Wesley House

  2,703

  Wolfson College

  2,646

  Durham colleges

  University

  189

  399

  £

  Hatfield

  189

  Grey

  189

  Van Mildert

  189

  Collingwood

  189

  St. Hild and St. Bede

  189

  St. Cuthbert's

  189

  St. Mary's

  189

  St. Aidan's

  189

  Trevelyan

  189

  University College, Stockton

  189

  St. Chad's

  960

  St. John's

  960

  Ushaw

  960

  Kent colleges

  Darwin

  170

  Eliot

  170

  Rutherford

  170

  Keynes

  170

  Lancaster colleges

  Bowland

  175

  Cartmel

  175

  Charlotte Mason

  175

  The County

  175

  Furness

  175

  Fylde

  175

  Grizedale

  175

  Lonsdale

  175

  Pendle

  175

  Oxford colleges

  Balliol

  3,034

  Brasenose

  3,053

  Christ Church

  3,051

  Corpus Christi

  3,044

  Exeter

  3,086

  Hertford

  3,219

  Jesus

  3,057

  Keeble

  3,289

  Lady Margaret Hall

  3,211

  Lincoln

  2,999

  Magdalen

  3,084

  Merton

  2,966

  New

  3,075

  Oriel

  3,212

  Pembroke

  3,060

  Queen's

  3,017

  St. Anne's

  3,196

  St. Catherine's

  3,110

  St. Edmund Hall

  3,171

  St. Hilda's

  3,164

  St. Hugh's

  3,199

  St. John's

  3,014

  St. Peter's

  3,267

  Somerville

  3,169

  Trinity

  3,037

  University

  3,070

  Wadham

  3,130

  Worcester

  3,121

  York colleges

  Alcuin

  160

  Derwent

  160

  Goodricke

  160

  Langwith

  160

  Vanburgh

  160

  Wentworth

  160

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for 400
  Education and Employment what was the spending per student in colleges of further education in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what is her Department's estimate for each year from 1995–96 to 1998–99. [4322]

  Mr. Paice
  Information on the total amount of spending in further education colleges is not held centrally. FE colleges have access to many sources of income, other than public expenditure, and are free to take their own decisions on how these resources are deployed. The Further Education Funding Council, however, holds collated accounting information from colleges, and I am therefore asking the council's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the date of last claims criteria for training for work is still in force; and what are the numbers of training for work applicants rejected under this criterion. [4748]

  Mr. Paice
  Following discussions with training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service, the Government have announced plans to change from date of claim to an alternative measure of unemployment duration for funding purposes from 1 February next year. Eligibility for the programme is not based on this criterion, so no applicants will have been rejected on this basis.

  Schools Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools reach his Department's recommended expenditure level for (i) books and (ii) other resource items. [4544]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government do not recommend expenditure levels for books or other school resources. They believe that schools should be allowed to decide themselves how to spend their own budgets.

  School Libraries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many school library services have been closed in each of the past five years; [4542]

  (2) what was the expenditure on books and materials in respect of school library services in each of the past five years, in real terms. [4545]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the schools library service. [4546]

  Mr. Squire
  The Government recognise that school library services can play an important role in supporting schools. They also believe that schools should have the freedom to decide themselves how to secure services, books and other resources to support learning.
  401
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools reach the chief inspector of schools' recommendation in respect of library resource items per head. [4543]

  Mr. Squire
  Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools does not make recommendations in respect of library resource items per head.

  Nursing Vouchers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment after what period she expects to evaluate the pilot scheme for nursery vouchers; and by what means. [4493]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The operational arrangements for phase 1 will be evaluated in the course of 1996–97 in consultation with the local education authorities concerned and the company responsible for voucher issue. Inspection reports will also become available over that period.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative the revenue commitment entered into by the Government for each year until the commitment ceases. [3397]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 December.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the policy changes which will arise from the final agreement in respect of each scheme agreed under the private finance initiative. [3398]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The agreement of schemes under the private finance initiative does not result in changes to the policy of the Government on the PFI. Agreed schemes do, however, represent the application of the PFI policy and offer us the opportunity to refine further the process of implementation. The lessons learned are set out in the publication "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit". This is published jointly by HM Treasury and the private finance panel, and a copy is available in the Members' Library.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many mobile telephones there are available in her Department for the use of Ministers. [4255]
  402
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Each Minister has his or her own personal mobile telephone—six in total. In addition, each Minister's private office has a mobile telephone—a further six. This makes a total of 12 immediately available for the use of Ministers.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the total amount paid by her Department to consultants in connection with the introduction of the job seeker's allowance; [4583]

  (2) which firms of consultants were employed by her Department in connection with the introduction of the job seeker's allowance. [4586]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department for Education and Employment has to date paid £88,000 to Andersen Consulting.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement following the Social Affairs Council meeting on 5 December. [4940]

  Mr. Forth
  I attended the Social Affairs Council meeting on 5 December in Brussels.

  There was an open discussion on employment issues. The Council's report for the employment discussion at the Madrid European Council, and the paper covering that report together with reports by the Economic and Finance Council and the Commission were agreed unanimously.

  Unanimous agreement was reached on a fourth equal opportunities action programme with a budget of 30 mecu. There were no discussions on the draft community programmes on older people, health and safety—SAFE—and research and information exchange in the employment field—ESSEN. There were no other votes.

  There were Commission presentations on three issues being taken forward under the other member states' agreement on social policy, on a Commission communication on the future of social protection, on a draft recommendation on the balanced participation of women and men in decision making and on the work of a Commission group on the information society. The draft posted workers directive was formally remitted to the Italian presidency.

  The draft directive amending the use of work equipment directive was agreed as an A point, with the United Kingdom and Italy abstaining.

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

Better Spoken English Initiative
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to pursue the initiatives on spoken English announced by Mrs. Gillian Shephard, M.P., Secretary of State for Education and Employment, on 1 1 th October.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, work is in hand to ensure that the GCSE English certificates show a separate grade for spoken English from next summer. The Better English Campaign steering group has also started work.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Of course, since English of one sort or another has been spoken around these parts for about 1,500 years, no one can expect dramatic improvements in the course of a couple of months, like being able to understand announcements on the Underground. But is it not the case that spoken English was something to which teachers were expected to give classroom attention for long decades before the National Curriculum came into being? Why is it in that case so difficult to meet the Secretary of State's quite modest request of 11th October that:
"a separate … grade for spoken English [be introduced] for the summer 1996 examination round"?
I am delighted that the Minister has been able to say that this will be introduced, but it has proved difficult, I understand. Why should this be? Can it be that teachers have treated this subject so cavalierly over the years that, for example, they lack the criteria to judge child A.'s English as worse than child B's or lack the ability, perhaps even the will, to ensure that child A gets up to child B's level?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is right to put the question in the perspective of some 1,500 years of spoken English. I think that he would accept that it is quite difficult to find a way of accurately assessing, in a manner that is fair and right, standards of spoken English. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked that the SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority) and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications should look at this with a view to coming forward with proposals which can be in place by the summer of next year. It is important to raise standards. We feel that this is largely a matter for the teaching profession itself to get right. We believe that it is something that it will be prepared to address.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the English Speaking Union—of which I am chairman—is already encouraging young people
1042
to develop their spoken English skills and that this year over 400 schools entered their GCSE students, 15 year-olds and 16 year-olds, for our public speaking competition? Another 400 schools entered their A-level students for our debating competition. Moreover, over 50 universities entered teams for the John Smith Memorial Mace debating competition. Is my noble friend further aware that the ESU's new centre for international debating and communication training is establishing a national network of workshops for young people that will build their confidence in their ability to speak in public and to debate—in English, of course?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was aware of some of what my noble friend had to tell me but not of everything that she told me and the whole House with her admirable clarity. All of us are grateful for what she and the English Speaking Union are doing.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that one good test of spoken English is the ability publicly to debate? Will he consider allocating some of the £250,000 to organisations like the Oratory Group which arranges public debating competitions between London schools, where young people learn to deploy a wide and expressive vocabulary, accurate syntax and, above all, a high standard of English grammar—"like what him and me have got"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the ability to debate is very important. I believe that it is something which this House does exceedingly well. I am sure that the noble Lord agrees with me. As to his specific request, it is an interesting suggestion that the money that we have allocated to the group which will be chaired by Mr. Trevor McDonald will be money for the group to allocate as it thinks best. I am sure that it would be right for that group to take forward the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an undertaking that the English language will remain untainted by "Eurospeak"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, one of the great strengths of the English language—and it is something that the noble Lord ought to recognize—is that throughout the years and throughout its history it has been able to develop and absorb words from other languages. I hope that the English language will continue to be able to develop and adapt in taking words from French, German, Latin or whatever.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, the right honourable lady (Mrs. Gillian Shephard) said in her speech that she did not want people to drop their rich regional accents in favour of so-called BBC English. May we likewise hope that the BBC will not drop so-called BBC English in favour of rich regional accents?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that that is a matter for the BBC. The noble Lord was right to stress that my right honourable friend made it quite clear that

1043
it has nothing to do with accents; it is a matter of being able to communicate efficiently and properly, so that one can be understood in the right manner.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the widespread satisfaction that greeted the news that Mr. Trevor McDonald was going to chair the body that would help the Secretary of State to improve the nation's English? Will he agree with me that too many television presenters, especially of programmes for young children, seem to court meretricious popularity by aping the accents and slovenliness of the incoherent? Might not Mr. McDonald be encouraged to use his influence and authority to ensure that those presenters rather emulate his own mellifluous clarity of diction and, of course, preserve the excellence of the media English at its best?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has to say; it certainly might be true of a number of presenters. I should not like to name names, I leave that to individual noble Lords to decide for themselves. As for the noble Lord's remarks in welcoming Mr. Trevor McDonald, can I emphasise how pleased we are that his appointment received a general welcome? I also stress that his group is very much independent of government, and it is up to that group to decide on its own programme of work, which we hope it will do, and take it forward.

Child Prostitution
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the recent Children's Society report on child prostitution, they will strengthen the guidance issued to police in order to make protection rather than prosecution the priority in dealing with children who are involved in prostitution.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the policing of prostitution is an operational matter for chief officers of police and the police service works closely with other agencies to protect children from all forms of abuse and exploitation. As the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, the prosecution of juveniles for offences relating to prostitution is an exceptional step taken only where other interventions are likely to be inappropriate or ineffective.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Given the indication in a recent report by the Children's Society that prostitution on the streets is an issue of survival for young people, will the noble Baroness agree that in order to remove children from such vulnerable activity there has to be collaboration between government and
1044
voluntary societies? Will she outline to the House proposals by Her Majesty's Government to remove this scandal from our streets?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to agree with the right reverend Prelate. This is a scourge involving the exploitation of children up with which we should not put. The Government believe very strongly that agencies should work together. That includes the police, who take such collaborative work very seriously. The report, however, contains an appeal to decriminalise; not to caution, not to press prosecutions and not to convict. I have to say that there are some very knowing and street-wise young people under the age of 18 out on the streets. It is very important that they understand the wrongness of that activity. At the same time, however, we have an absolute obligation to concern ourselves with their protection.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate raises the choice between protection and prosecution. When that choice is being made, is not one primary consideration a destination for such children that will free them from the temptation to take drugs? Is that not one of the major factors in child prostitution?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, it is not the main factor. Certainly children get into activities on the streets for many different reasons. We saw graphic illustrations of the abuse and exploitation of children on our television screens last night. It is not only a question of drugs. It is important that those with responsibility for children, particularly of primary school age and 10 to 13 year-olds—their parents, guardians or those who have responsibility for them when they are in care—are first in the front line to protect them and keep them at home at night, not on the streets.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the Children Act 1989 needs amendment? So many children who are on the streets as prostitutes have been in residential care and have no home. Should not social services have a duty to look after such children after they have left care?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Children who are vulnerable when they leave care should be protected. But there are many agencies other than social services. Social services have responsibility for people of all ages in the community. It is those who work with children in care who have a particular responsibility until the young person is deemed to be of adult age.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it be possible for consideration to be given to the idea that our very able police might be encouraged to participate in relation to this incredibly difficult matter with parent-teacher associations? A triumvirate of police, parents and teachers could assist in eradicating this awful problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we continue to do everything we can to encourage all agencies, especially those directly involved with the care of children;

1045
teachers, parents, guardians, social care homes, children's homes and the police. The police have gone a very long way, not only specifically to train staff who work with children but to set up special units within forces, so that any child who comes under their auspices and who is suspected of any criminal activity, particularly of this kind, can be dealt with. Collaboration between all the agencies is very important.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has it come to the notice of the Government that in recent years there has been the tragedy of children being taken abroad, apparently for holidays, and being sold into prostitution? Although the practice is difficult to detect or prevent, will the Government bear it in mind and take whatever steps are necessary to try to reduce it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will he comforted by some of the measures that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is to take. We are seeking the greatest possible collaboration with other countries to do what we can to put an end to this evil trade.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, after 16 years of Conservative government boasting of so many investments in social policy, these horrendous social problems are now manifesting themselves on the streets of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is very unfortunate that the noble Lord has sought to introduce party politics. This question concerns everybody and it is very important to get it into perspective. The report claims as fact but quite erroneously—I make the point only because of the noble Lord's remarks—that children of primary school age are being cautioned and convicted of these crimes. It is not true. The main area of cautions and conviction relates to 15, 16 and 17 year-olds. Those are young people who should know better than to be out on the street engaging in these activities. It is a message to the whole community, and particularly to parents, to take much more of an interest in what children are doing, where they are, and what activities they are involved in outside the home.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister referred to the previous questioner introducing party politics into the debate. All of us in this House can understand why that charge is wounding. However, can the Minister advise the House as to the situation 20 years ago? It seems that the problem has got worse over the past few years. The House would welcome information about its prevalence 10 years and 20 years ago.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, bringing party politics to this subject was not wounding; it was inappropriate. The Government have made parents more responsible for their children before the court; it is now possible to bind over parents in court. We continue to make it easier for young people to come forward, tell us what is going on in their lives and talk about abuse. The police are making it easier for children to talk about these matters; social services departments and other departments are working with children. The chances are that many of
1046
these activities were going on but we did not know too much about them. We have to continue to flush out these evil activities. All of us, all in this Chamber, should do what we can to root them out.

Malathion
3.18 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which is the main route of absorption into the human body of the organophosphate malathion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there are many hundreds of organophosphates. Malathion is widely used as it is one of the least toxic. When used as a medication or pesticide, there is a very limited amount of absorption, mainly through the skin.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Why do we pour malathion on the heads of small children when we do not know what are the effects of low-level applications over a long period of time on the immune system and central nervous system, which are not fully developed in such children? We also allow it to be used by pregnant mothers. We know that malathion passes into the foetus. There have been reports of deformities in young children. Is the Minister aware of the work of Rodgers and Ellefson, indicating that:
"an allergic-type response was occurring within four hours after exposure to malathion at concentrations over a thousand times lower than levels known to produce inhibition of acetylcholinesterase"?
I wonder whether that could account for the increase in allergies and behavioural problems in young children. Will the Minister instigate research into this matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that there have been a number of studies undertaken in order to license the medicines and pesticides, which would include shampoos and lotions. I draw the attention of the noble Countess in particular to the one published in the IARC monograph of 1983. They include lifetime studies on animals, which is usual for data supplied for registration. However, I can assure the noble Countess that we are absolutely confident that there is no danger to children from using shampoos and lotions containing. malathion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the articles in the journal Pesticide Reform, a reputable scientific journal, which underline the dangers to human beings of the use of malathion? Is she also aware of a recent report by the Agriculture Committee in another place which recommended that organophosphates used on animals should be on a "prescription only" basis? Does she agree that, in view of the known dangers of malathion, the recommendation should also apply to its use on humans?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that the intensity of malathion for human use in terms of shampoos and lotions is absolutely minuscule compared

1047
with that used for pesticides. The noble Lord is right in that we have taken action with regard to pesticides. However, I am assured that there is no need to do so with regard to shampoos and lotions. Of course, there are two products on the market which do not contain malathion.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government are actively promoting the bug busting campaign? If not, would they consider doing so, especially as it does not promote any of the apparently damaging chemicals?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, we support Community Hygiene Concern which runs that campaign. Over the three years starting this year we are giving it £25,000 in order to help it take forward its programme.

Bosnia Peace Conference
3.22 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the terms of reference of the peace implementation conference for Bosnia, to be held in London on 8th and 9th December.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, there are no fixed terms of reference for the conference. However, it may assist the noble Lord and the House if I advise them that the aim of the London peace implementation conference is to agree structures for the civilian implementation and ensure that those mesh with the framework for the military implementation force (IFOR) for which planning within NATO is well advanced. The London conference will open with a briefing on IFOR and thereafter focus on civilian implementation structures and the high representative; humanitarian issues, refugees and displaced persons; political institutions and elections; and reconstruction and development.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and particularly for what he said about the civilian aspects of the conference. Will the Government ensure that the human rights aspect, especially the right of return of displaced persons, is fully considered, bearing in mind the implications of the right of return for future elections?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the timing of the return of refugees will be looked at in conjunction with the military timetable. It will probably be better to avoid large scale returns until the forces are separated. We believe that that is the way it should be done.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we all strongly admire the role that British forces and British relief workers have played in former Yugoslavia up to the present time? Will he give the House an assurance now that Her Majesty's Government will see the peace implementation through?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, obviously the signing ceremony in Paris will be very important. We are very keen and determined that it should go through, but that is not totally up to us. We want to support it as much as
1048
possible. I thank the noble Lord and agree with him totally about the excellent job that our forces have done so far. I believe that providing that everything comes together as we hope they will certainly continue to do so in the future.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House wishes the conference the greatest possible success and the Government an easy time organising it. Can the Government say whether they favour the United States' wish that the original agreement should continue to be called the Dayton agreement or whether they favour the French wish that, since it is to be signed at the Elysée in Paris, it should be called the Elysée treaty?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not have any briefing on that. I should like to say that, to be quite honest, it does not matter what it is called. If it can be implemented and effective, we can call it what anyone pleases.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are we to infer from the noble Lord's original reply that at this conference there will be a departure from the usual practice, of which the noble Lord is well aware, of a draft communiqué being placed before the conference anyway?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I should imagine that in this situation any draft communiqué would be after the conference and not beforehand.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the words of the Minister in answer to the original Question were very welcome. Will he say a little more, in particular with reference to the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Bosnia? Can he give an assurance that the work of that very valuable organisation will be taken care of; in other words, that its role will be protected in any discussions which take place at the conference?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I can indeed assure the noble Lord that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees will provide a briefing on the UNHCR work at the conference. The representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross will also outline the tasks facing aid agencies. So the conference will be fully aware of the problems and will hope to assist them.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that securing a long-term peace in Bosnia will be greatly helped by a meaningful programme of economic reconstruction? As the UK Government will chair the London peace conference, presumably they will take the lead in asking the international community for support for that purpose. In that context, what kind of funding will the UK Government be offering?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I totally agree that reconstruction is an essential part of long-term peace in the area. The final decisions on who will be contributing what will be discussed at the conference and thereafter. The humanitarian effort that we have made over the past three years, including the ODA' s £283.5 million contribution, has laid a foundation. However, at this stage I cannot state what the UK Government's contribution will be.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the International Committee of the Red Cross has played an important role in ensuring the observance of the Geneva Conventions in former Yugoslavia? Are the Government yet in a position to tell the House whether and when they will ratify the additional protocols of the Geneva Convention?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I endorse the noble Lord's words so far as concerns the activities of the Red Cross. I shall have to write to him with regard to his second request.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is it the case that Her Majesty's Government have limited the allocation of forces to IFOR for a period of 12 months? If so, when does the clock which measures the 12 months start ticking?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the NATO forces are indeed committed for a period of 12 months and to come out within 12 months. The clock will start ticking after the North Atlantic Council authorisation of the operation, which will follow the final signature of the peace agreement and UN Security Council resolution. The main NATO forces will begin to deploy immediately following the NAC decision. It is important to deploy rapidly to capitalise on the signature and maintain the momentum of the peace process. However, I should like to add that the commitment of substantial US ground forces is a prerequisite for the involvement of our own forces.

Parliamentary Approval of Treaties
3.29 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted Prerogative may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure providing for the parliamentary approval of treaties.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that the Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Chemical Weapons Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The concept of the welfare state conjures up in some people's minds a vision of helpless people in need of someone to manage
1050
their lives. That is both wrong and degrading. Disabled people know how to order their lives. They are often very independent and self-reliant and the state should not patronise them.
At the heart of community care is the aim of supporting and sustaining individuals within the community rather than encouraging people to withdraw from it. It is driven by a commitment to respond to the individual's desire to lead as normal a life as possible. Direct payments are a natural progression in community care towards that goal, giving users more control and more choice.
Local authorities have increasingly involved users in making decisions over their own lives, both in the services they receive and in planning new ones. Experience shows that they welcome this approach. But users have been asking us to go further—to go beyond involving them in decisions which affect them and to give them control over the money which is spent meeting their needs, so that they can make more decisions themselves.
That is what the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill will make possible. Local authorities will be able to give people cash instead of services, so that those people can choose within the available resources how and when the services they need will be provided. They will be able to decide whom to employ to assist them in leading more independent lives and directly manage the services they wish to receive.
Our commitment last November to introduce this legislation was widely welcomed by disabled people, who are keen to take on this freedom. Local authorities have also welcomed our proposals. We are very grateful to a group of representatives of disabled people and local authorities who helped us think through the issues as we worked out the details of this Bill. We intend to go out to wider consultation shortly on our proposals for regulations.
Clauses 1 to 3 of this Bill apply to England and . Wales. Clause 4 makes corresponding provision for Scotland by adding new sections to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Clause 5 is a technical consequential amendment. Clause 6 allows for this legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council using the negative resolution procedure. So when this legislation comes into force, this power will be available to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.. My comments therefore apply in general to the UK.
The starting point of the Bill is the local authority's assessment of an individual's community care needs. If it appears to the authority that someone (let us call her Rachael Brown) needs services—whether it be a person to help care for her, an adaptation, special equipment or any other service which the authority might provide—it has a duty to assess her needs. If it concludes that Rachael needs services, then at present it can either provide those services itself or purchase them on her behalf from another agency. Under this Bill, in certain circumstances the local authority will also have the option to make a direct payment to her to enable her to buy the services herself.

1051
The Bill does not impose on local authorities a duty to offer anyone direct payments instead of services. Local authorities will still have to decide the most appropriate way of meeting an individual's needs; but they will now have a new alternative to offer. Nor will any individual be forced to accept direct payments. If Rachael prefers services rather than cash, then that is her choice. She might also choose to receive a mixture of both cash and services.
Clause 1, and the Scottish equivalent in clause 4, enables the Secretary of State to specify in regulations which groups of people may receive direct payments. We think it will be sensible to restrict the initial size of the client group for this new, untested scheme.
In the consultation paper to be published early in the New Year we will set out a number of alternatives suggesting who should be included in the eligible group. We will consider carefully what people have to say during the consultative exercise and before we reach a final decision.
The payments will work as follows: The local authority will decide how much the direct payment to Rachael Brown should be. The local authority will not be able to set direct payments at a level which is insufficient to meet her needs. Nor can it set direct payments at a level which it knows is less cost-effective than the services it provides—the authority still has a duty to ensure value for taxpayers' money. So, for example, the local authority cannot arbitrarily decide to give Rachael £100 for a service that costs £200. Equally, if she says that the service will cost her £300, and the local authority knows that the same service is available for £200, it does not have to pay her the additional £100.
In setting the level of payments, the local authority can also take into account Rachael's financial circumstances. This enables them to require her to make a financial contribution to the overall cost of her care in the same way as it may charge for services. Not to include this provision in the Bill would be unfair to others who receive local authority services.
We propose to make regulations specifying certain categories of people who may not be paid to provide care using direct payments. Again, this is an area where we will spell things out in detail in our consultation paper. We intend to use this power to prevent the inappropriate use of direct payments to pay for "informal" care; that is, care provided voluntarily by family and close friends. The aim of direct payments is to give users more choice and control over services which they would otherwise receive from local authorities, not to replace existing support given by families and communities. But we do not intend to use this power significantly to restrict the .individual's choice of support.
Clause 1 also contains a power to make regulations to limit the length of time for which direct payments may be used to pay for residential accommodation. This will allow local authorities to make direct payments for temporary residential care—for example, for respite—but not for permanent residential care. We will be consulting on what the maximum period should be.
1052
The final provision under Clause 1 is for local authorities to be able to require direct payments to be repaid in certain circumstances. We will consult as to what those circumstances should be, but the power is designed to recover money which has been misspent. This is important as it will deter people from abusing the system. We do not expect abuses to be common, but if anyone does divert the money they receive to other purposes, local authorities need to have the power to require them to return it.
Clause 2, and its Scottish equivalent in Clause 4, ensures that a local authority which makes direct payments will not also have to arrange the services, thus paying twice. So long as the local authority is satisfied that the individual's own arrangements are adequate to provide the agreed service, it is relieved of its responsibility. However, the local authority still has to act as "carer of last resort" and will have a responsibility to arrange the services if it is not satisfied that the individual's needs are being met.
Clause 3 is a consequential amendment to include direct payments in the list of social services functions. This means that people receiving direct payments will have the same access to the complaints procedures as others, and that the Secretary of State will have the same powers to intervene, should a local authority fail to carry out this function properly, as he does in other cases. An equivalent clause is not needed for Scotland as the Scottish provisions will form part of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which already provides for a complaints procedure and other functions.
This Bill is an exciting and highly innovative measure which has the potential to make a major difference to many people's lives. It will give adults who are able and willing to manage their own care the opportunity to do so.
Direct payments are an idea whose time has come. I applaud the local authorities which have tried, with imagination and ingenuity, to make their services more , responsive to people's needs. But imagine a man in his forties suffering from multiple sclerosis who needs a lot of help to carry out everyday tasks. When receiving local authority services, he may not be able to control who comes into his home to help him or what time they come. He is a recipient. Give him direct payments and he will be able to choose how the services are provided and when. He might choose to employ his own personal assistant or contract with an agency. Either way, he is in charge.
Local authorities have been asking us to allow direct payments, and I believe that they can make them work, but there are some complex issues involved. Useful lessons can be drawn from the experience of the independent living funds, and from the payment schemes that some authorities have operated through voluntary organisations. But direct payments have never been part of core community care provision. This Bill is designed to give local authorities the best chance of making direct payments a success. Since direct payments will, for some people, replace community care services, we expect any local authority that decides to make direct payments to do so within existing resources.

1053
This Bill is an important step along the road of handing back to disabled people the dignity and respect they deserve. They have welcomed this new opportunity to take charge of their own lives. Some might wish us to go further, faster. But this is a new venture which goes beyond what any local authority has operated to date. This is not a time for enthusiasm to triumph over common sense.
I have said that we intend to consult on our proposed regulations. I hope to publish a consultation paper in the new year. In order to allow a reasonable length of time for people to respond to the consultation, I doubt that it will be completed before the Bill has gone to another place. But I can assure your Lordships that we will not be seeking to complete the Bill's passage before the consultation period ends, and that we will give careful consideration to the comments we receive. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
3.41 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with real sincerity we thank the Minister for introducing the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill is very much welcomed and has all-party support. When a couple of years ago the noble Lord, Lord McColl, introduced a somewhat similar Private Member's Bill following a similar effort in the other place by Mr. Andrew Rowe, the Minister regretfully told the House that she had to be the messenger of bad news. I think that she is perhaps slightly happier with her role today.
I wish also to pay tribute to those organisations which have worked so hard and so long for a Bill such as this. I think in particular of the Disablement Income Group, the Disability Alliance and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, as well as those pioneering local authorities led by Kingston but supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services. Indeed, local authorities have for so long been keen on direct payments that many of them have been bending the law and laundering such money through trusts and voluntary organisations, something to which the Government have wisely and equally illegally turned a blind eye.
Why were direct payments wanted? Direct payments place a disabled person at the centre of the care system rather than as a dependant on it. A disabled person is supported to be independent rather than cared for as a dependant. Direct payments mean that services are fitted to the needs of the client because she—I was delighted that the Minister had a Rachel Brown rather than a Richard Brown—purchases, she organises, she employs, she manages and she chooses, rather than she being fitted to the needs of services. One has only to think of the pressures on a local authority trying to organise a rota of putting to bed services, and if someone has to be put to bed at 9.30 p.m. and someone else at 10.30 p.m., how limiting that is for the person involved. The client must fit. But if the disabled person employs her own staff—she determines when she gets up, when she goes
1054
to bed and when she goes out—it permits spontaneity and flexibility, the choices in life that every one of us here takes for granted.
With services, alas, too often that can mean that your own home becomes a smaller version of a residential home. You are confined to or contained in your own environment. But with direct payments, as the experience of the independent living fund has shown, they are very often a springboard to the richer and fuller life that we would all wish to enjoy. As a client of the ILF reported in the BCODP's report of last year, Cashing in on Independence, said:
"1 am in control. I can decide when I want help. The way help is delivered—I feel it is my life, not someone else's. You are not fitted into other people's timetable. Freedom—you can choose who you have. If you don't like them, you can have someone else. You can choose the manner in which a task is performed, unlike when local authority home care staff are used. It releases me to have family as family and friends as friends".
The second reason for supporting the Bill is that many care tasks, as many of your Lordships will know, are quite intimate. They involve toileting, bathing and dressing. Therefore it means that a disabled person with direct payments to purchase that care, no longer has to depend on the ministrations of strangers who may change from week to week; who may be kindly; who may be careless; who may be over protective; who may be judgmental; or who may not, for example, respect confidentiality on such sensitive issues as gender orientation. As an independent living fund client said:
"If you are paying for it, you get what you want".
It ensures dignity and privacy.
The third great advantage of direct payments is not only that disabled people are placed at the centre of the care system and are allowed to choose who should provide these intimate services; but it provides us as a community, and they as disabled people, with better value for money. It can be, and usually is, cheaper—not because direct payments pay for cheap labour but because local authority services in kind invariably carry up to 30 per cent. overheads; £5 an hour of direct payment takes £8 of local authority equivalent service.
It is also cheaper for a second reason, because a social worker is not required to handle the day-to-day administration of, say, a taxi account, at £20 an hour. The disabled person, or perhaps the carer, will use their skills, energy and time to manage and employ. That means not a dethronement of the professional but allowing the professional to spend valuable time on the professional judgment of assessing needs, arranging training packages and, if necessary, providing the dip stick of financial and quality control. For that reason, we also welcome the Bill.
It is also better value for money because it allows the services bought with that cash to be better targeted to needs which can indeed—for example if one has multiple sclerosis—fluctuate from week to week and does not insist that you get the same, week in week out, whatever your timetable, whatever your needs or whatever your medical condition.
Research in 1994 showed that, with the services equivalent to the cash value of direct payments, 80 per cent. of those receiving services wanted and needed

1055
more hours. But only 37 per cent. of those were receiving direct payments. Direct payments allow them to use the cash to target and meet their needs more effectively. They allow personal brokerage. The contrast with the cost of residential care is very striking. The information that comes to us from Kingston is that the authority supported eight severely disabled people in the community through direct payments at a cost of £55,000. The same cost for those eight people in residential homes would have been more than £500,000.
I quoted the direct payment client who said that direct payments allowed a family to be a family and friends to be friends. Direct payments allow the employment of personal assistants who, in turn, are able to meet needs. That frees family and friends from the often heavy and, sadly, occasionally resented burden of care—resented on both sides. Parents, partners and children no longer will become carers on whom the disabled person is quite so dependent and who in turn too often treat the disabled person as less than a full or complete moral adult. What it means is that there will be greater equity, greater respect and greater dignity within the family. Of course, informal caring will continue but the burden will not be so heavy and the help will be more gracefully received.
This is not for everyone. We estimate that perhaps one person in 1,000 people receives home care and perhaps only one tenth of those may want direct payments. Many other people, particularly the lonely elderly, may prefer the ease and companionship of services instead. It is very much an outline Bill and, as ever, the devil will be in the detail and in the regulations. We regret very much that we have not been able to enjoy the results of the consultation exercise. But at Committee stage we shall seek to raise issues which we suspect will be dealt with by regulations. Perhaps I shall seek to get the Minister's assurances or in some cases put certain concerns on the face of the Bill.
The first question in this context is that this Bill gives local authorities—I believe the Minister was entirely right to emphasise this—discretion whether to offer direct payments in whole or in part. We agree with that. But we do not believe that it is sensible to narrow local authority discretion in advance by excluding certain groups of disabled people potentially from the right to direct payments. We want every disabled person potentially, if it is appropriate, to have access to direct payments whether they be young people of 16 or 17 years of age; older people over 65 or people with educational learning difficulties as well as those with severe handicaps.
We are not saying that all should receive direct payments or that all want them, but we are saying that that decision should be made locally through the discretion of the local authority, informed by the professional judgment of the social worker and not made a priori by the Secretary of State who cannot know what the local circumstances are. This is all the more so, as direct payments under this Bill are not a right but a discretion from a local authority, and if that discretion is being exercised by the local authority, we do not need a second tier of discretion behind it; namely, that of the Secretary of State.
1056
However, we are anxious that disabled people should not experience a geographical lottery utterly dependent on where they live. Hence, we shall be moving amendments to ensure that such direct payments should "not be unreasonably withheld", thus ensuring equity of access for disabled people across the country, but within a framework a test of reasonableness about the way in which the local authority exercises its judgment.
The Minister did not mention this, but perhaps she will confirm it in her reply: we also want to underpin direct payments and strengthen references in the Bill to the appeals procedure with perhaps ultimately a right of reference to the ombudsman. We shall also want local authorities to publish annual reports in terms of assessing demand and need and the degree to which they have been met.
One of the issues concerning local authorities will be the financial implications. I am sorry that the Minister's remarks were quite as robust as they were. She said that local authorities can expect no additional finance if they switch from services to cash, on the assumption that there is a cash equivalence between the two. For example, will the Minister tell us what will happen to the existing independent living fund? I do not believe that she mentioned it. Will its work and finance be transferred to local authorities and, if so, will it be ring-fenced? Therefore, will there be a sunset clause? Can the Minister tell us whether there will be a floor or a ceiling to the levels of direct payments?
Still on the subject of finance, will the Minister give us very clear assurances—and this is pivotal—that direct payments, because they will now be cash and not services, in no way affect the other cash benefits that a disabled person currently receives? Can she confirm that we shall not see the disability living allowance or the disability working allowance affected; that we shall not see such cash payments counted as income when it comes to the assessment of other benefits such as housing benefit, council tax benefit and even income support itself? That is crucial. I am sure that the Minister' intends that it should not, but it will help to have her words on the face of the Bill.
Can we also ensure that such payments are not counted, for example, for the Child Support Agency and, equally, that any particular payment that currently goes to a disabled person by virtue of their disability such as DLA or DWA, should not count towards the assessment for charging purposes? Can we also ensure that the health medical element that may come from the district nursing service, which is currently now free, will not also be turned into a cash equivalent and charging assessed against it? It is very important because the success or failure of this scheme will depend on such questions.
Still on finance, what are the charging issues in the locality? At the moment a disabled person may receive 10 hours of home help and contribute, say, £20 towards the full cost of, say, £80. If that is translated into direct payments, how will the charging mechanism come into place? For example, will the charge be deducted at source or will there be a subsequent repayment? Will the Government issue guidelines to that effect?

1057
We share with the Minister a concern for safeguards as regards financial audit because direct payments are not meant to be a charter for cheap labour in which care is assessed at £8, a person pays £4 and the difference is held to be unaccountable. We all wish to explore whether the Minister has assumed in regulations such issues as contracts of employment, dedicated bank accounts or timesheets, and whether they are envisaged. After all, we are dealing with public money and no one, least of all disabled people themselves, would wish there to be any suggestion of misuse by people in the future.
We may equally wish to explore the implications of having a register of personal assistants in order to ensure a degree of quality control. We are open-minded about that. It may prove to be useful to people who are perhaps not used to being employers.
We mentioned earlier that up to two-thirds of local authorities are currently laundering direct payments through trusts. Experience shows that, at least to begin with, disabled people will need help and support in becoming employers and coping with tax, national insurance and accounts. The ILF has certainly had cases in which there has been less than appropriate handling of those matters and a disabled person has got into financial difficulties. Can we emphasise from the beginning—and hope that the Minister will share with us—the fact that it is urgent that even before direct payments are paid, and certainly from the point at which they are made, local authorities also produce support packages, where appropriate, for the disabled person so that they know how to manage the money, the staff and the tax and insurance implications, otherwise there may well be very real difficulties in the future.
Perhaps I may finish by quoting from Sir Peter Large, who has done so much for disabled people. He once said that direct payment,
"means the difference between a life in which most of your choices are made by others and a life in which you can mostly choose for yourself'.
This Bill extends to disabled people the right to choose, which is the same right that we all want and enjoy for ourselves. We are delighted that the Government have finally brought forward such a Bill after pressure for so long. We shall seek to make it even better. We welcome it and hope that it will get a speedy and effective passage through this House.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a councillor in the London borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames, which is a unitary authority with responsibility for social services and, of course, community care obligations. I too welcome this Bill very warmly. I welcome it because, in assisting people to take responsibility for and control of their own lives, something quite inherent to human dignity is being recognised. I also welcome it because it is really better to make legal something which has been of doubtful legality until now. I also welcome it because it provides a further right to make an informed choice and I stress the term "informed". I believe that it will be important to ensure that real choices are made available to those who should have the opportunities which this Bill seeks to provide.
1058
Having taken this very important step, the Government must take care not to fail in the detail. I note what the Minister said about the consultation which is to take place in the new year. I was sad that she indicated that it was unlikely to be completed before the Bill leaves this House. It is important that the legislative process does not outstrip the consultation on the proposed regulations, and indeed that the legislative process does not go very far down the line before that consultation has taken place.
Given the attention that it is able to pay to matters of detail, I believe that this House is perhaps the better forum in which to discuss that detail. It would be a pity if important, practical, small but significant matters had to be left until the Bill was in another place and if, for reasons unconnected with the Bill but relating to the pressures on the parliamentary timetable, they were not given the attention that they deserve. I understand that where there is a major change of direction such as this, it is sensible to provide for the possibility of adjustment in regulations rather than in primary legislation, so I do not seek to challenge the use of regulations.
However, if those who support the thrust of the Bill are to be happy with it, many questions needs to be answered. I hope that every opportunity can be given for full discussion of and agreement to the regulations which will be so important for the application of the principle. Those questions include: who will be able to benefit from the Bill? I very much agree that the Bill and its application must not be discriminatory. I accept that, because this is a new way of providing services and of making them available, the gradual extension of the application may be important so that all those involved can learn as experience is gathered.
It is important that there is no discrimination on the ground of age, for instance. It would be sad if there were a cut-off point at, say, 65, as has been mentioned. It is also important that there is no discrimination on the ground of what perhaps I may call "ability". Those who may be less able than others and who perhaps have learning difficulties are still able to take decisions when they have the appropriate support.
Another question relates to the services that are the subject of the Bill. I believe that local authority services should remain eligible to he purchased. In the centralisation of government there is a move to reject what is done by local authorities. I hope that that is not the case here and that the services which local authorities can provide will be among those included in the provisions. Furthermore, these provisions on community care services should not be any part of a move to replace what should properly be health care. To put it another way, the legislation should not provide the excuse to shift responsibility for what is properly health provision into another pocket and another purse.
Another question is: what if the client or the user fails properly to secure the care that she or he—I too will put it that way—should be securing and to which he or she is entitled? Is the local authority to be required, in effect, to pay twice over and thus prejudice its ability to support other people?

1059
Clause 1(2) raises the question of means. The relationship between means and need will need to be considered. It is impossible to avoid consideration of questions about the total funding available if only because every new scheme almost inevitably involves start-up costs. It would be a great pity to jeopardise the scheme by failing to pump-prime it properly. That is not to say that the best value for money should not be sought. I am well aware of the research that indicates that the independent purchase of care leads to both better quality and better value for money. However, I cannot help but think that economies of scale can now be achieved which are perhaps a counterweight to the on-costs of administration which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned. No doubt the practitioners will be using their best efforts to achieve those economies.
It will be the individual who will have the incentive to get the best value from the resources that are available to her or him. However, in the less well-run authorities, that could be reduced to, "Here is a certain sum of money; do what you can with it". As the Minister said, the overall and underlying responsibility for care is most important. Finally, on the subject of resources, the inter-relationship between payments and benefits is important. Perhaps I should say that it is important that the payments do not affect other benefits.
By whom are the services to be provided? I suggest that Clause 1(3) is slightly unusual, in that the payment is,
"subject to the condition that the person to whom it is made shall not secure the provision … specified … by the Secretary of State".
It will be interesting to see such a regulation. Those provisions raise, perhaps indirectly, the question of the regulation of the services which are to be provided, among which are domiciliary care services. There has been some call for the regulation of domiciliary care services. Such questions will doubtless be answered as the Bill moves towards enactment.
The rights of those who provide the services are important in any new regime, as are the concomitant responsibilities of the service users in their new role as employers. The provision of assistance to both parties will be an important aspect of the effective introduction of the new arrangements.
I repeat that my main concern is how to ensure that choice can properly be exercised. Once introduced, we shall need to know how the scheme is working. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on that point. It is important that there should be an easily accessible review by local authorities, possibly as part of their community care reports. Therefore, although I heartily welcome the Bill, I believe that before it is enacted we need to see considerable progress with regard to what is not on its face.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I give a warm welcome to the Bill and join the Minister in saying that this is an "exciting" moment for those of us who have been involved from early on. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned 1992 and Andrew
1060
Rowe's Bill; in 1993 we had that of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It was as early as 1990, during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act, that my noble friend Lady Masham and I lost an amendment by five votes. The Minister may remember the occasion because it happened soon after she became a Member of your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Masham is extremely sorry not to be here today but she is attending a regional health authority seminar.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but for different reasons, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Spinal Injuries Association, which was started 10 years ago by my noble friend who is its president. Those very severely disabled quadraplegics were among the first to press for direct payments and the freedom to choose who gave them the very personal assistance about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke, together with the freedom to operate to their own timetable, which is essential if you are to do a job and lead a busy and effective life. Both my noble friend and I are fortunate. We are not sufficiently disabled to need help with personal care, but we are only about three vertebrae away. If we age and deteriorate much more, both of us could find ourselves directly interested parties.
The Bill is most welcome, but I have one or two questions which I hope the Minister can answer today. There are also one or two changes which I should like to see made during the passage of the Bill. It must be right under Clause 1 that it should be discretionary, not mandatory, for local authorities to offer direct payments to those who are not only capable, but who are actually willing, to organise their own care package because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, not everyone who is eligible will want to do so.
I welcome the fact that there can be a mixture of care and cash payments. That may well prove useful. I hope that it will be made clear that any payments made in lieu of service should be allowed to include an administrative component which would otherwise be absorbed within the delivered service. I know that that was done in one successful early example of direct payments. I hope that the Minister can answer the point when she replies.
I turn to Clause 1(1)(b) relating to who will be allowed to benefit. I am grateful to the Library for the helpful notes it sent me. They indicate—the noble Baroness said this today—that eligibility may be restricted by disability and by age. It cannot be right to impose an age restriction. I imagine—I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance—that anyone already in the scheme will be able to continue when they reach 65. Why should anyone be less capable of organising their care package at the age of 65 rather than 63 or 64? It is not a question, after all, that they will no longer be eligible for the benefit but just the method of the delivery of the help.
Imagine the frustration, for example, of a paraplegic who, having led an active and independent life for many years, becomes a bit more disabled and needs help with personal tasks, and who is told at the age of 65 that he cannot retain control of his life and keep his

1061
independence. The Secretary of State should not be able to put blanket restrictions on particular disabilities. It is difficult to draw firm lines: people vary so much, not just in their abilities but in their desire to take on the business of managing their own package.
Until last week I believed that we were talking only about a narrow specific group of severely physically disabled people, but I understand that there are a good many examples of, for instance, people with learning disabilities who are in receipt of direct or indirect—through a third party—payments. Surely, just as it is up to local authorities to decide whether to offer direct payments, it should be up to local authorities to decide to whom they offer that option. The only real criterion should be that the person be capable, in one way or another, of managing his own affairs.
I come now to means testing. Will the Minister assure us that any means testing for direct payments will be on the same basis as for providing service? I reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said about welcoming the assurance that disability living allowance or attendance allowance will not be taken into account when calculating the amount of the direct payment.
Clause 1(3) relates to the categories of people who may not be paid. I believe it is a question of relatives and that people in receipt of direct payments will not be able to purchase local authority-provided services. I am not sure why. I wonder whether the Minister can expand on that point. There was one word of caution from the Spinal Injuries Association in a brief written by someone who has been in receipt of direct payments and knows what he is talking about. It said that we must remember, as the Minister made clear, that the purpose of the Bill is primarily to enable disabled people to have more choice and control over the assistance that they need in their lives. We must, however, avoid the situation of an adult, living with his or her parents, where the payment becomes a considered part of a family income and leads to the individual being institutionalised within the parental home. I see that as something against which we may have to guard.
Clause 1(5) deals with reclaiming all or part of direct payments. Will the Minister go into more detail on that when she replies? Apart from that, I give the Bill the warmest of welcomes. I hope that the Minister can reassure me tonight on the means testing and disregard of the DLA and AA. I look forward to the Committee stage and hope that we can arrive at a satisfactory arrangement about eligibility.
We have waited a long time for the legislation on direct payments. We very much want to get it right. It is right that local authorities should have discretion as to whether to offer direct payments and to whom, but—here I like the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—they should not be withheld unreasonably. I hope that we can turn a good and most welcome Bill into a very good Bill indeed.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, we must all be grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her lucid explanation of the aims of the Bill. I support the
1062
principle of direct payments. I made that clear when supporting the Private Member's Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord McColl, a year or two ago.
The Bill is needed. Direct payments by local authorities in England and Wales have been ruled illegal. So some local authorities have been making payments indirectly through third parties. Direct payments have been possible in Scotland within prescribed circumstances. The situation needs to be rationalised for the whole country and to become part of the community care system.
As regards Scotland, the relevant Scottish Office departments carry out the functions of the Department of Health in England and of the Department of the Environment in England in dealing with local authorities. There has been separate legislation in Scotland, in particular the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
The experience of direct payments in Scotland has encouraged the adoption of an authorised system within UK legislation. Also, the Independent Living Fund, while it was functioning until the early 1990s, proved that its clients benefited from making their own arrangements for care and that the payment system was cost-effective. It was in the interests of the taxpayer that that system should be adopted.
While I am glad that the Bill has received a wide welcome, many important ingredients of the proposals have still to be worked out and adopted; for example, the categories of disabled and elderly to be included, and, perhaps more important, those not to be included. A great deal has to be filled in by the regulations. I have been awaiting the expected report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee (of which I am no longer a member), but I am informed that the report is not yet available. I look forward with interest to seeing its opinion on the suitability of the statutory instruments proposed which would contain the regulations under Clause 1 and Clause 4 (that is, England, Wales and Scotland respectively), and also the committee's opinion on the parliamentary procedures proposed for those statutory instruments.
Leaving much to be decided later and brought forward in regulations has advantages and disadvantages. As regards the advantages, it leaves time for full consultation with organisations which will be involved or are concerned. During the recent passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill, I, and I am sure other Members of the House, were aware that many voluntary organisations were asking that too much should not be put into the primary legislation and that too much should not be decided before they had had every opportunity to be consulted and to put their views forward, and to have those views taken into account in the subsequent legislation. Those are the advantages.
The disadvantage is that we do not know at this stage of the Bill the particulars of the scope which is intended. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us as clear indications as possible of what the Government have in mind and what is likely to be in the regulations at later stages of our discussions.

1063
One matter which is not clear to me is the intention to bring in clients gradually, starting with particular categories. Here I note that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, speaking in another place in the debate on the gracious Speech, said:
"We want to focus on specific groups so that we can test the system and ensure that it is well proven before it is implemented generally".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/95; col. 243.]
Are there to be pilot schemes? It is not clear whether there will be pilot schemes limited to particular areas. Is the rumour correct that, to start with at any rate, the schemes will be restricted to those under the age of 60?
That brings me to the overlap of disabled people and elderly people, for both categories of which the care in the community system was created to cater. The 1991 census, with its definition of disability, produced the figure of 6.5 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. That figure has been much quoted ever since. The census analysis accompanying the figures also recorded that more than 5 million of the 6.5 million were over retirement age, most not having been disabled during their working lives. Therefore, a large proportion of the classified disabled are elderly people with handicaps of the kind which must be expected with advancing years.
The organisation Age Concern is worried about how the proposed direct payments scheme will start and for whom it will cater when it is finally in full operation. Connected questions have been raised by the Law Society. It seems that in the Bill there will be definitions of community care services and disabled people and they will not necessarily be the same definitions as appear in other statutes. A definition "for the purpose of this Act", whatever Act it may be, is a common practice as we know it in parliamentary terms. However, it is bound to be confusing to members of the public and many organisations which are concerned with these matters outside Parliament.
There is doubt and anxiety among organisations concerned about who will be eligible. For example, might a very severely mentally disabled person be ruled out because he or she is judged to be unable to handle the payments and purchases? To what extent will carers or competent helpers be accepted to manage arrangements for an elderly person who may not be capable of making the care plans on his or her own? Those are the questions—others have been raised by earlier speakers—to which we do not yet know the answers. It is intended that answers shall be provided in the regulations to come after full consultation.
I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill now, although there is still much to be decided and included in the scheme. I support the intentions in the Bill. I wish my noble friend Lady Cumberlege well in the discussions and consultations which she and her colleagues in government will no doubt be carrying out in the immediate future.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I join all those who have supported the Bill's basic intentions. Indeed, its general thrusts are so straightforward that it is strange
1064
that it was not introduced sooner. At least it is before us now. We should all applaud direct payments to the elderly and to disabled people to enable them to determine their own types of care.
I shall not repeat the points that have already been made, but it is clear that we must feel our way forward gently. There are many potential problems ahead; for instance, the types of local authorities and the structure will be difficult to determine.
The only point that I can usefully make at this time is this. We have heard much of the problems of introducing individual payments and the problem of defining the status of employers has been hinted at. However, we have not taken on board the fact that we shall need comprehensive support services for everyone involved in the system. The vast majority of people will not be used to selecting care for themselves. They will not know how to do that legally and financially, nor will they know the type of care that they should be receiving at a particular time. They will know about their current type of care and they will have a rough idea about where that is going. Other people will require knowledge of certain aspects. But we shall need support services which will know when new techniques and methods of care come on stream.
I hope that in the pump-priming—and there must be pump-priming—that will be borne in mind. Without such help, an individual may be restricting himself or herself in the type of care that is received for the simple reason that they do not have the appropriate information. The Government must take that on board. Furthermore, many groups of people will be brought within the scope of the Bill, but I hope that no group will be eliminated merely because of the paperwork involved. Decisions should be made on an individual basis and on the basis of need. However, certain groups of people will have difficulty with the paperwork. Unless assistance is given to them, they will not be able to take advantage of the benefits of the system. I hope that during the various stages of the Bill we shall be given information about the guidance that is to be provided. Without such guidance and support it is unlikely that most people will get the best out of the system.
We must bear in mind that where there is a group of 10 disabled people there will be 10 types of individual need. Therefore, I hope that there will be no subdividing of the types of assistance for individual categories. We must provide support services that are flexible for individuals so that they can get the best from a system that is designed to give them dignity and status.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest in the Bill as the father of a 15 year-old mentally handicapped daughter and as the unpaid honorary president of RESCARE, the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care. I would also like to apologise to your Lordships on behalf of my noble friend Lady Cox. She is unable to be with us this afternoon because of a long-standing engagement, as speaker at a university open day, which

1065
she felt she could not avoid. She has asked me to say that she will be taking a keen interest in the later stages of the Bill.
I spoke about the Bill on the third day of our debate on the humble Address on 20th November (cols. 201 to 203 of the Official Report). I will not try your Lordships' patience by repeating that now. My noble friend on the Front Bench has been good enough to have sent a letter to me stating that she will attempt to answer the questions that I put then which were not answered by my noble friend Lady Blatch, who was answering for the Government on that day.
Briefly, I made the case then, as I and others have done before, for village communities for mentally handicapped people, which appear to be preferred by the majority of families with a handicapped member. I asked whether the direct payments proposed under the Bill could be available for those families too. One is especially talking about mentally handicapped people who are so handicapped that they cannot be expected to make that kind of decision for themselves. I mentioned the strange but virulent bias which exists in local services and health authorities against such communities. I suggested that local services appeared to be flouting the Government's intention that 85 percent. of public spending on care referrals should be ring-fenced for the non-council sector. I concluded that the Citizen's Charter was therefore being largely ignored in this area and that this was costing the taxpayer very large sums of money.
If the full import of what I said on 20th November is properly measured, I am now confident that we could save thousands of millions of pounds annually if we merely did what so many families want us to do. I repeat that we are not putting money first before care effectiveness, but the economies of scale which village communities offer and the health requirements of our more mentally handicapped people which they can meet are unavoidable, if that is what their families want.
Since then I have been giving some thought as to why this virulent bias against village communities has become so politically correct in our Department of Health and in local services. I have been asking myself why the pendulum of opinion has swung too far away from care in a residential hospital (many of which certainly had their problems) towards nothing but care in an ordinary house in an ordinary street, towards integration into the so-called community at any price, even at the price of ignoring the Citizen's Charter, and at vast expense to boot.
There is not time to debate the answers fully today, although many of them are in the brochure to which I referred in our debate on the Queen's Speech, Made to Care, a copy of which is in the Library with, as its main author, my noble friend Lady Cox.
There is clearly a certain professional arrogance in the air which takes for granted that life in an ordinary house in an ordinary street must be more fulfilling or more "empowering"—to use the jargon—than life in a village community in the country. There is also inexplicable bias against life in the country, especially in the deep country. But many of our most fortunate and
1066
successful citizens choose to live in the country and avoid London and other towns like the plague. That preference for country living is not entirely unknown, even among Members of your Lordships' House. So why should this choice be deprived to our mentally handicapped?
There is an assumption, often mistaken in my view, that a village community must be stigmatised as "that sort of funny place on the hill" or some such, and that its inhabitants must therefore feel ashamed. I assure your Lordships that my daughter does not feel ashamed. She cheerfully says she is going home when she returns to her community school, where she has a real place among her peers and where she is not constantly reminded of her handicap by other so-called normal children and people. I am convinced that this must often apply to mentally handicapped adults as well.
Of course, there are many families who know that their mentally handicapped relative is happier and even perhaps made to seem more normal by living in an ordinary house in an ordinary street. It is just that many of us know that that can be a very lonely place and even more institutionalised than the residential hospital from which they may have been evicted against their own or their family's wishes. The point is that there should be genuine choice and the point is that at the moment there is not.
The professional arrogance of which I complain is nearly always to be found in people who do not themselves have mentally handicapped members of their own families. There is a theory going around these professionals at the moment that those of us parents who support village communities must be suffering from a psychological illness known as "cognitive dissonance", which was put forward by a Mr. Festinger in 1957, I gather. This means that we feel so unconsciously guilty about having placed our relatives in a village that we are incapable of recognising the beauties of community care, as administered, of course, by the professionals who advance this theory against us.
I am no expert in Mr. Festinger's theory, but I cannot see why we should not be allowed to apply it to the very same professionals who advance it against us and suggest that it is their subconscious guilt in feeling so fearful of mental handicap which makes them want our relatives to be more normal than they really are. This therefore makes them so arrogant towards us that they cling aggressively to their notions of normality as achieved by community care.
Be that as it may, and I feel sure that it is, I have been reading the Conservative research department's brief on this Bill which is presumably well-informed about the Government's intentions. Without giving any party secrets away, I propose to quote a few passages from this laudable document which seem to make it very difficult for my noble friend on the Front Bench not to agree at least with the thrust of my request.
We start under "Key Points" with the main aim of the Bill where it says:
"The … Bill will allow local authorities to give people cash payments as an alternative to community care services".

1067
I am assuming throughout all of this that with really handicapped people one is involving their families closely in this choice. The brief goes on:
"Direct payments will give people more choice and control over their lives, and so more independence".
That is, of course, exactly what we are looking for.
When we come to the care reforms and the aims of the reforms we are told that these will ensure that:
"Individuals are directly involved in planning the services they are to receive: their needs and wishes are paramount".
I am sure that we all agree with that. It goes on:
"The old system had a bias towards residential care, regardless of what was best for the individuals concerned. The reforms have removed this bias, offering people genuine flexibility and choice in how they are looked after".
My Lords, not so. It is now biased against residential care and village communities which must not be confused with the old-style residential hospitals.
The document goes on to say that the object of the exercise is,
"to promote the development of a flourishing independent sector. This will help to improve standards and value for money. It will also help to ensure individual choice".
In my speech on the Queen's Speech, I quoted an internal memorandum from Birmingham social services department which I think disproves that that is happening at the moment and in fact suggests that quite a lot of local authorities are flouting those requirements.
The document talks of securing,
"better value for taxpayers' money, as a result of a new funding structure for social care".
Under "The Role of the Local Authorities", the document states:
"Councils now have to: identify those people who appear to be in need of care services; assess what help or support these people need … discussing with them their wishes and preferences … These services may be provided by the local authority, but increasingly a greater proportion will be purchased under contract from organisations in the independent (i.e. non-local authority) sector. Where the individual appears to need health services or help with housing, the authority must get in touch with those who can provide assistance".
Again, one assumes that they will be in touch with the family.
When we come to "The Role of the NHS", this includes,
"continuing in-patient care under specialist supervision in hospital or in a nursing home".
Again, I emphasise that the healthcare needs of our most mentally handicapped can be very well dealt with in a village community. The document goes on to talk about,
"specialist health care support to people in … residential care homes".
That is also welcome. I assume that that will also apply to village communities.
My final quote from this excellent document is this:
"The Government seeks to implement policies which are designed to help all sections of society—including elderly people".
Of course we all agree with that, and I assume that the mentally handicapped are included. It goes on:
1068
"whether they are living in their own home or in a residential home. It will continue to look at all suggestions which are made for improvements in this area, as with all policy areas, to see if they are practical and workable".
I conclude with a suggestion which I fear is not only practical and workable, but also very urgent. It is that the plan to close the remaining long-stay residential hospitals and to discharge their 16,000 most severely mentally handicapped residents into the community by the end of next year, 1996, should be shelved until the Government complete the survey which has been started by the Department of Health. I trust that it will result in a revision of the department's attitude to village communities. Only thus can those 16,000 of our most unfortunate people face anything but a most uncertain future in the community.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I, too, must declare an interest as the chairman of MENCAP and as the father of a 44 year-old mentally handicapped, learning disabled daughter. She celebrated her 44th birthday on Sunday, and did so in a MENCAP Homes Foundation house where she is resident with three other people in an ordinary street, in an ordinary part of the outskirts of London.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I have to say that we are utterly satisfied with the care and attention, love and devotion which is shown to our daughter not only by her co-residents but also by the care staff and the neighbours. As I said, my daughter is 44 years of age. She is virtually incapable of walking—she either uses a frame or a wheelchair. She is virtually blind, having had detached retinas and cataracts. She has been three times in Kingston Hospital and three times in the Moorfields Eye Hospital. At present, she is going through what can only be described as a crisis of menopause which is causing her a great deal of discomfort and mental agitation. But despite all that, she is cared for supremely well in a house which is situated in a street near Twickenham.
As the penultimate speaker before the gap in the list of speakers, I am reminded of the time when I was in demand as an act at charitable midnight matinées. You arrived at 11 p.m. and went on to perform at 3 o'clock in the morning. It was advisable to listen to all the other acts that went on in between, otherwise you would find yourself arriving on the stage at 3 o'clock in the morning telling exactly the same stories which had been told by several other performers prior to your appearance. You either had to re-write your act at the time, or you had to hope that the audience had been largely asleep and that you could blind ahead with what you had originally written. I know that your Lordships are not asleep, but I am going to blind ahead with what was originally written knowing that much of what I intend to say has already been said by other speakers.
I sense a considerable measure of unanimity around the proposition that direct payments are a "good thing". Certainly, I have yet to hear anyone say that they are not a good thing. I sense also a fair measure of agreement that they are not so uniquely a good thing

1069
that all our community care eggs should be put in this particular basket. In other words, you can—in this instance at least—have too much of a good thing. I want, if I may, to take a short walk along the frontier between direct payments and more traditional ways of delivering community care support. I do so, knowing that frontiers are sometimes mined!
As I understand it, our present Government take the view that in general it is better that people should spend their own money on making their own choices—because that way you get an efficient and responsive market; and people buy what they want, rather than being given things they do not want by other people who think they ought to want them.
Whatever our personal politics, I think it fair to say that, over a large part of our lives, most of us also like to "buy our own thing"—and count ourselves fortunate to the extent that we can, and unfortunate to the extent that we cannot. That way, we feel in control.
On that line of argument, community care would mean assessing and costing people's needs and wishes, and, as far as possible, giving them the money to satisfy those needs and wishes. The snags, at least at this stage in our development, are that we are locked into old service systems. We do not have the market to deliver choice: people lack information about what we do have; planning might become impossible (it is already often pretty poor); and monitoring extremely difficult. Moreover, I am not at all sure how we would handle cut-backs.
So, I conclude that we are talking in today's debate about one way of doing things and an approach that will probably, in practice, be chosen on quite a small scale. If it works well, it may well grow. However, I also conclude that we are not talking about a tiny minority of people with physical disability and high intellectual ability and business acumen, who can handle the whole process of direct payments from beginning to end with no outside help. There are such people, and I wish them well. But if we do not go wider than that, we are not only ignoring the rights of a wider range of people to have more say in their own affairs; we are also ignoring the evidence that a wider range of people can indeed benefit.
So, perhaps I may outline the sort of scheme that MENCAP and, I believe, our People First partners—Simone Aspis and her colleagues—want to see. It will be a scheme with the following features: no upper or lower age limit for adult beneficiaries; no disability discrimination—specifically the inclusion of people with learning disabilities; provision for the involvement of accountable supporters-advocates, brokers, and so on—who will help people make choices and follow through those choices; and monitoring by the local authority, in conjunction with the beneficiary.
The low expectations that some have of people with learning disabilities are very much the result of the low opportunities with which they have been provided. I have to confess that, 10 years ago, my briefing was all about people with learning disabilities. Now some of it is by them. It was G. K. Chesterton who wrote:
"If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change".
1070
Our perception of the capabilities of people with a learning disability may not yet have reached storm proportions—but I trust that the Government will recognise that the waters are rising.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I follow two speakers who have shown with excellent examples that, no matter how similar disabilities may appear to be, the care requirements can be totally different depending on the individuals. I should begin by declaring an interest in that I work for John Grooms Association for Disabled People which provides care in the community to people with disabilities in their own homes and which has been, and still is, involved in a number of experimental schemes which incorporate direct payments.
The first time that I heard about direct payments was, I believe, way back in 1984. A young man had been so severely injured that he could not move anything below his neck, but somehow the powers that be were persuaded that he should be allowed to handle his own grants and buy his own care. It was reported to me that the young man said that it made him feel like a human being again. He had his independence and could arrange for his carers to come in when he wanted them and not when the local authority decided. Moreover, he could end his day at whatever time of the evening or night that he wanted and not when the local authority decided was the latest that they were prepared to employ a carer.
We are discussing a major step towards the independence of disabled people—an independence that the rest of us take for granted. The Bill will enable care services to be provided that are tailored to the needs of the individual rather than to the needs of the local authority.
Despite my welcome for the Bill, it is only an enabling Bill. It does not impose a duty on local authorities to make cash payments. There could well be differences in the quality and the way care services are provided in the areas of different authorities, particularly as the local authorities will have the choice of paying the whole or whatever part they think fit of the cost of any service which a person has been assessed as needing. Will that mean that they will give cash for services that are difficult to provide? Do the Government intend to monitor the level of grants to cover different care services provided by different authorities? Will that monitoring take into account the often higher cost of providing services in rural areas? Does the service that is being bought have to be that which the local authority has assessed as being needed, or may the purchaser buy services that are more appropriate to his needs—possibly services that the local authority would not be able or willing to provide'?
In Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State has been given power to specify by regulation who will be eligible to receive direct payments. Surely all those who are capable of managing their own affairs, either on their own or with the assistance of their carers, attorneys, receivers or other advisers, should be eligible. We all take advice on certain aspects of our lives and no one says that we ought not to. Is this the Government's

1071
intention? When considering this matter it should be borne in mind that 18 per cent. of those receiving grants from the Independent Living (1993) Fund have learning disabilities. Quite obviously they make their arrangements with the assistance of advisers. If some categories are to be excluded from the scope of this Bill, that should in my view be put on the face of the Bill and not be left to regulations.
Can my noble friend tell us what categories of people under the provisions of Clause 1(3) will be allowed under the proposed regulations to be paid for care services? Will people be allowed to purchase services from their own or neighbouring local authorities? Will they be permitted to pay relatives, many of whom already care for their own disabled parents, children or spouse, often having been forced to give up paid work to do so? What will be the position of friends who live in the same house and who provide care services?
There can be no justification for the exclusion from the scope of direct purchase of care services on grounds only of the identity of the provider. The providers of such services should, however, be regulated so as to meet reasonable standards of service and quality. I welcome the inclusion of Clause 1(4) which allows for the purchase of respite care. That is often needed as much, if not more, by the carer as by the disabled person.
Once this Bill becomes an Act local authorities will still be responsible for ensuring that proper provision is made for the care service for which the recipient of cash payments has been assessed. Will my noble friend ensure that the lessons learnt both by local authorities and voluntary organisations in the so far unofficial and experimental schemes, where direct cash payments have been made for the direct employment of carers by the recipients of care, are circulated to all local authorities and recipients of care as they become employers for the first time? Can my noble friend assure the House that cash payments will be sufficient to enable the care receiving employer to pay for all the expenses involved as an employer such as national insurance contributions, sick pay, employer's liability insurance and compliance with health and safety regulations? Finally, will the recipient of cash for care be able to appeal against the amount that is assessed as adequate to pay for his care? I am delighted that my noble friend has introduced this Bill into the House. I wish it well but I have a feeling that we have a lot of work to do to improve it and to make certain that it will emerge as a fully workable Act.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the task of winding up on a Bill on which there has been so little disagreement is difficult in a rather unusual way. However, I shall do my best. The Bill has, of course, a somewhat narrow although important theme; namely, the question of direct payments. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke a little outside the area covered by the Bill when they referred to care in the community as opposed to care in a residential institution or village home.
1072
Before I deal with the main aspects of the Bill, I should say in passing that we should have considerable sympathy with those who raised the issue of the continuing value of a certain kind of care on an institutional or semi-institutional basis. I fancy a good many of us realise that we showed excessive enthusiasm and excessive speed in emptying institutions before we were entirely satisfied that we really understood the needs of the people who had been in those institutions, and for whom we were not—as it turned out—making adequate provision. Although, as I have said, the matter was slightly outside the terms of the Bill, it was valuable that the opportunity was taken once again to raise that point, which a good many people—those of us at any rate with experience in this field in our personal lives—would recognise as being of considerable importance.
I return to the main thrust of the Bill, which is the subject of discussion this afternoon. I suppose that some of us at any rate enjoyed, as I did, that great comedienne, Thora Hird, in the radio performance "The Cracker Under the Sofa". If this Bill had been in operation, the person who provided the so-called help in that performance would never have darkened the door of Thora Hird again. Anyone who put her in the situation depicted in "The Cracker Under the Sofa" would have recognised that that kind of help had disappeared without trace.
The point is that the Bill gives the person who is receiving the help control over the help that is being given. There is no doubt at all that it is the person who pays the piper who calls the tune. Too many people who have received help through local authorities have never been in a position to call the tune. What is worse than that, because they have been so dependent on the help being given, they have not even dared to mention to those who pay the piper their criticisms and dissatisfactions with the service that they have received. Many of us who met such people realised how vulnerable they were as they were not the employer. They were the recipients of services which were paid for by someone else.
To that extent—it is a considerable extent—we obviously greatly welcome this change. It is something for which many of us have pressed for a long time. As has been said on all sides of your Lordships' House today, we are glad that the Government have brought forward this Bill at this time.
However, I very much echo those who say that there is a long way to go before we shall really understand how to make this measure work properly. I shall deal with the first and obvious point; namely, will there be enough money to pay for adequate services? There is bound to be a temptation, if one allocates money to allow people to buy services, that little by little and inch by inch this is done as cheaply as possible. However, that would be a false economy in this field. There must be sufficient money available to provide these services. Indeed there ought to be more money available for the direct service than there has been in the past, because the overheads will surely be lower. However, as I hope I shall show in a moment, there should still be continuing overheads—although these will not be as

1073
large as they have been in the past—to deal with the issues which will arise in bringing into being and in operating the direct payments scheme.
We must recognise that not everyone will want this provision. Many will want it and it is right that they should. However, it is right—nothing would induce me to refer to a level playing field! —that there should be absolutely free choice as to whether one wishes to continue with a local authority service or whether one wishes to have the right to buy the service oneself. Some people will prefer to have the service provided by the local authority. It is their right to choose that option, and it should be available if that is what they want. Therefore, we are not moving from provision by the local authority to a system whereby people receive the money and buy the care for themselves, although perhaps before long that will be assumed to be the normal way of doing things.
Other noble Lords have raised these points in passing or touched on them. I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to say that payments would not be available to the existing informal carers. I can understand why she said that, but I can see a great many difficulties arising as a result. If an informal carer who is providing the service at present becomes aware that money is available for that service to be provided by somebody else, his or her reaction is likely to be to find something more interesting, attractive and remunerative to do outside the house and to enable the person for whom he or she is caring to get the money to buy the services which up to now have been provided free by the informal carer. Given the burdens that are placed on informal carers at present, and the large amount of money that informal carers are saving the community, I should not like it to be thought that any such change is to be turned down without consideration.
It may be right that in the future the informal carers who have been carrying the burden at great cost to themselves should be free to say, "Now that money is available for the service to be provided, I wish to return to my job, part-time or full-time, and payment can be made for someone to do what I have been doing up till now". This is certainly a matter which will have to be made very clear, because it will crop up very quickly. There are some 6 million informal carers and this point is not going to escape their attention. We should very much like to know what comments the noble Baroness has to make on that point. However, perhaps I misunderstood what she said on that subject.
It is not only the position of the people being looked after and their carers which needs consideration. There is also the very important question of the people who will provide the services. Being an employer is an increasingly complicated process. It is likely that an employee who is brought in to do the work will be working for six hours a week for six different people. The mind boggles at the complications in terms of employment law in such a process. Most employers of people who are employed on short-time work in domestic institutions—and I dare say this applies to some in your Lordships' House—do not fully conform with employment law at present: they do not provide all the safeguards, contributions and rights which would
1074
apply if the person were employed in a factory. Often National Insurance is not paid, pension rights are not protected, and all the rest of it. If there is to be a large-scale development in terms of people being employed in other people's homes on a short-term basis, involving a large number of different employers, we have to have a carefully designed system which will ensure that those employees are employed on a proper basis and their legal rights are adequately protected. I do not see anything in the Bill which suggests that that will be the case. To take it for granted that it will happen is cloud-cuckoo-land. It will not unless provision is made to ensure that it does.
A further issue connected with the employee is the quality of that employee. This raises an issue which has been discussed a number of times in your Lordships' House; namely, the need for a register of people who will provide services of this kind. I speak as the President of the Institute of Domiciliary Carers. Good carers in this field—people who provide services in a responsible way—would like a register. They are all too aware that cowboys appear as soon as there is an opportunity of this kind. Those cowboys will be exploiting a particularly exploitable part of the labour market. Unless there is some way of controlling the quality of the people who will do the work, the exploitation is likely to be serious. We must reconsider the Hinchliffe Bill which was talked out or defeated in another place on a previous occasion. The issue has not gone away. This Bill makes it even more important that we revive it.
Those are just some of the many issues which need to be considered. Therefore, it is good news that the Government intend initially to pilot the introduction of the scheme, to monitor it closely, to learn from that monitoring, and then to spread the scheme throughout the country as a whole, because it is basically an extremely good programme.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much welcome the strong and universal support expressed by your Lordships for the principles of the Bill, even if some noble Lords said that it had been a little late in coming. I sense a very different atmosphere from that which I experienced on the last occasion, when I felt, despite the courtesy and generosity of your Lordships' House, that there was a wish to shoot the messenger.
This is a measure which will make a real difference to the lives of many people who need community care services. Direct payments will place the crucial decisions about how care is delivered in the hands of the person being cared for. I understand many of the anxieties that have been expressed this evening, particularly those expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who feel that perhaps the Bill has not gone far enough and there is an issue of power versus duty. However, we feel that it would be wrong to compel local authorities to offer direct payments. That view was shared and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).

1075
The reasons are these. This is a very new scheme. Local authorities will need to find ways of satisfying themselves that an individual will he able to manage direct payments and that the arrangements they make are adequate for their needs. Experience with the independent living funds and with payment schemes operated by voluntary organisations will, of course, be useful, but direct payments have not previously been part of mainstream community care. Local authorities are moving at different speeds in the implementation of the community care reforms which were introduced only in 1993. Some are making great advances but others are struggling even with their current responsibilities. It would be in nobody's interest, least of all those who receive direct payments, if we instructed local authorities to introduce these payments for everyone, regardless of their ability to manage, and then they were unable to make a success of the scheme.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I listened very closely to the debate, and I do not think that anybody argued that at all. Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. The position that some of us sought to argue was not that local authorities should not exercise their discretion—although it should not be unreasonably exercised—but we were concerned about the Secretary of State's intention to limit the discretion of local authorities by restricting the eligibility of certain groups in advance.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the second point that I shall address. If I understood my noble friend Lord Swinfen correctly, he wanted this to be a universal requirement on local authorities since he was worried about the unevenness that there might be across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is right that others are concerned about restricting the eligibility of different client groups, and many noble Lords expressed anxieties about that matter. That will be very much part of the consultation exercise that we shall undertake, and we shall consider it seriously when we receive the results of that consultation. We shall not be denying any group access to care. They will still receive that through the social services. What we are talking about here is access to direct payments. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). But not to limit the client group would raise unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved in the short term and might, indeed, put the whole scheme of direct payments at risk.
This Bill is not about discrimination against certain groups of people. We are not prejudging who will be able to manage direct payments. We are simply saying that there are good reasons for starting small. As I said, we shall be consulting on which groups should be included and we will take account of the points raised.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked about the extent of the regulations, as did my noble friend Lord Swinfen in suggesting that the eligibility restriction should be on the face of the Bill. We feel that defining it in regulations will ensure that it can be changed in the
1076
light of experience, without the need to amend primary legislation. That is why we feel it is more appropriate to have this in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. I have had the advantage of seeing the results of the scrutiny committee to which my noble friend referred, but perhaps it will be more appropriate to discuss that in Committee when other Members of your Lordships' House have also had a chance to look at it.
Many noble Lords raised the question of resources. Local authorities will make direct payments only where they would otherwise have been providing or purchasing services for an individual. We are, of course, giving them a new power which they have been asking for. It will give them more flexibility in how they fulfil their existing community care responsibilities.
I do not accept that social services departments lack the resources that they need in order to use this new power. Just a week ago my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that local authorities are to receive an extra £418 million to fund community care services in 1996–97. The money will be ring-fenced and it cannot be used for any purpose except community care. That will be the fourth tranche of extra money that has been provided since the start of the new community care policy. It will bring the total extra resources for community care to £2¼ billion since 1993–94, so just in six years since the start of this decade we will have doubled in real terms the amount of money provided for community care.
In Scotland, the final figures for 1996–97 have yet to be announced, but local authorities can expect to receive nearly £40 million extra for these services, with further allowance for the care gap and infrastructure costs. That will bring the total extra resources for community care in Scotland to £280 million since 1993–94.
These are substantial increases by any standards and amply demonstrate the Government's commitment to funding this new policy fairly. I doubt whether any other area of government spending can boast increases on that scale. But it will not stop there. We plan to inject still more funds in subsequent years, and by 1998–99 the total extra resources will rise to nearly £3 billion. So for every £1 spent on community care at the start of this decade, we plan to provide £3 by the end of the decade.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that local authorities will make direct payments only with the individual's consent. Local authorities will not be able to force them to accept cash for services that local authorities would rather not provide directly. So there really is a voluntary element here. It is up to people to decide whether they want to receive these payments.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Hollis, and other noble Lords asked about the relationship between the independent living fund and the Bill. The extension fund of the independent living fund is a closed fund which now supports about 14,000 clients. That support will continue regardless of whether those clients continue to receive community care services or begin to receive direct payments in lieu of those services. The second fund, the independent living 1993 fund, is open to new clients. It will continue to be

1077
available to severely disabled people on the same basis, whether they choose direct payments, community care services or a mixture of both. The existence of the independent living funds does not make direct payments unnecessary. Direct payments will substitute for community care services which would otherwise be arranged by the local authority. Cash payments from the independent living funds complement the local authority's provision and support independent living for a particular group of the most severely disabled people. Direct payments will be a part of mainstream provision.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), also asked how charging would work. How should local authorities decide how much to charge? This will be for the local authorities to decide, just as they currently decide how to charge for domiciliary services. Then there was the question of how charging would work. Will the charge be deducted at source or will someone pay a charge? The Bill's provision is that the payment would be made net of the financial contribution the individual makes. This, we feel, is much less bureaucratic than giving a sum of money, only to require some of it to be returned later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked about floors and ceilings. Again, we will leave that to local authorities to decide. But I can assure her that other cash benefits through the social security system will not be affected, and nor will the principles embodied in the National Health Service. Direct payments will be made available only in lieu of community care services which would otherwise have been arranged by the local authority, not for continuing health care, which is a health authority responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, felt that there was a need for very comprehensive support services. We intend to put out guidance and that will stress the importance of support services. We shall be interested to hear about current good practice so that that can be incorporated in the guidance that we put out.
The question was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to whether people will be able to use direct payments to buy community care services from local authorities. People who receive direct payments will not be able to use them to purchase services from local authorities because local authorities are not permitted to sell services in that way. However, if someone wishes to receive services from a local authority, they can choose to receive those services instead of direct payments. They can also receive a mixture of services and direct payments. So direct payments do not create a bias against local authority provision.
There was also concern that local authorities would leave people to sink or swim and not give them the support that perhaps they need when they enter the scheme. But a local authority which makes direct payments to someone will not then be able to wash its hands of that person. It will certainly not make direct payments to someone who does not feel able to manage. As I said earlier, the person's consent is crucial.
Individuals receiving direct payments should make reasonable back-up arrangements to cope with emergencies—for example, if their personal assistant
1078
simply does not turn up one day. But if the needs the direct payments are intended to cover are not met by their own arrangements in an emergency or for any other reason, the local authority will have a responsibility to step in and arrange the services. Of course, if a local authority is being asked to step in, it may well decide to look again at whether the individual can manage the direct payments scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the regulation of providers of domestic care. We do not propose to use the regulation-making power in Clause 1(3) significantly to restrict the individual's choice of provider. This Bill is a measure to give users more choice and control. What many of the disabled people who have been calling for this legislation want to do is to use direct payments to employ their own personal assistants. We would not want to exclude that alternative. Each local authority will have to decide what monitoring arrangements it puts in place to be absolutely sure that the needs to which direct payments relate are being met. The local authority will have a responsibility to step in, as I said, and arrange services if the arrangements which someone makes using their direct payments are not adequate to meet their needs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked whether payments will include an allowance for administration. That will be a matter for local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was very anxious to ensure that we review the scheme and how it is working. Local authorities must publish community care plans; from April 1996 they should publish community care charters. We would expect local authorities to use plans and charters to give information on direct payments.
My noble friend also asked whether we intended to have pilot schemes. We do not intend to run pilots in the geographical sense; all local authorities will be able to offer direct payments. He also asked whether in this Bill the definition of "community care services" and "disabled people" would be different from the definition in other legislation. Clause 1A explains that the definition of "community care services" is the same as in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. We have not offered a definition of "disabled people", but if we did we would ensure that it was consistent with existing legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked whether it was fair to exclude informal carers from receiving these payments. We believe that excluding informal carers from being paid to provide care using direct payments does not mean that we do not recognise their role. It is a very, very important one. But it is different from that of paid employees who provide care on a formal contractual basis. Direct payments will be an alternative to services that people would otherwise receive from the local authority and, as I said in my opening remarks, they are not to replace existing support networks within families and communities. We do not want to create pressure for families to formalise informal arrangements. We feel that it would be bound to place

1079
relationships under strain. Existing support for informal carers is more appropriate to their role and their relationship to the person for whom they care.
The noble Baroness also asked whether we intended to give people assistance in their role as employer. As I said, we shall be issuing guidance to ensure that people are aware of their responsibilities as employers. I am sure that the local authorities will wish to help those who are undertaking this new responsibility.
My noble friend Lord Pearson raised the whole question of choice and village communities. Perhaps I should explain that we intend to use the regulation-making power in subsection (4) of Clause 1 to exclude the use of direct payments to pay for permanent residential care. We feel that suitable arrangements to provide choice in permanent residential care are already in place; to make direct payments available for this purpose would simply add to the bureaucracy. That is the same for all client groups.
I know that my noble friend is very concerned about the lack of choice, as he sees it, being offered by local authorities. We have a direction on choice. If people feel very frustrated by that and feel it is not working, especially with regard to village communities, they have a right to use the complaints procedures. But, as I think the noble Lord knows, we are having an evaluation at the moment to examine the various forms of residential provision, including that in village communities. Indeed, the booklet, Made to Care, that my noble friend quoted is very much part of that review. The whole review will be completed in about six months' time.
My noble friend Lord Pearson also asked about authorities flouting the 85 per cent. rule. All local authorities are required to submit to the Department of Health returns on their compliance with the 85 per cent. rule. These returns are audited by the independent and expert district auditors. For 1993–94, the only year for which audited returns are yet available, almost all authorities met the 85 per cent. condition. The Secretary of State is considering whether to take action in regard to those that did not.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked whether the families of people with learning disabilities would be able to manage direct payments on their behalf. Direct payments are intended to give the user more control over the way in which care is met. This benefit will not be realised unless the user is in control of the direct payments, but there is no reason why they should not get help from their families or others in managing the payments.
We have said that we will consult on the detail to be contained in the regulations under this Bill. As I said earlier, that consultation paper will be published shortly. Many of the issues raised in this debate will be considered further during the consultation and no doubt throughout the Committee stages. Whatever our conclusions at this stage on those issues, the power to specify these points of detail in regulations will enable us to adjust the framework for direct payments in the light of experience.
1080
I wish to conclude, not with my words but with the words of those involved with existing payment schemes. Terry Butler, Director of Social Services in Hampshire, said of the scheme that his council has operated for over 10 years:
"I get more positive comments from users about this programme than from almost any other service we provide … In addition, I can provide more direct care per pound spent on the payments programme than other services".
That endorses the views expressed by noble Lords this afternoon that the scheme does provide good value. One of the many people who have benefited from the scheme in Hampshire, Liz Briggs, said:
"This gives me choice over my life, I am in control of my daily living. As a disabled person you lose so much of this, the scheme has given it back to me. I now have a quality of life".
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Health and Safety (Repeals and Revocations) Regulations 1995
5.26 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations be approved.
The regulations are to be made under Section 37 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 in order to remove, without replacement, certain existing health and safety statutory provisions which have been shown to be outdated and which have no practical effect.
The proposals, which are before your Lordships today, are part of a process which should, in time, reduce the volume of general health and safety law, by 40 per cent., while at the same time maintaining health and safety standards.
In fact, the simplification which we aim to achieve should actually improve standards, as people will have a clearer idea of what they definitely have to do, and will not have to waste time on unnecessary paperwork trying to find out.
In December 1992, the Government invited the Health and Safety Commission to review health and safety legislation at the workplace, and to advise the Government whether the legislation was still necessary. It was made clear, though, that the Government intended to maintain standards of health and safety.
The commission's review demonstrated that the present system of regulation has won widespread support. But, health and safety law has been considered to be voluminous, complicated and fragmented. This undoubtedly makes it harder for employers and others to comply with it.
The commission therefore proposed a programme of reform of the legislation in order to reduce its volume, and more importantly in terms of its impact on business, to simplify and to clarify that legislation which remains.

1081
The regulations, which are before your Lordships today, will remove 12 sets of outdated regulations, one Act, and one Section of another Act. They will remove, without replacement, legislation which covers: homeworkers; slaughterhouses; railway running sheds; and horizontal milling machines; as well as the hours of work for people who work on shifts in the manufacture of sheet-glass using automatic machines.
The legislation covering homeworkers dates back to 1911. It was originally enacted in order to address the risk of the spread of public disease, such as plague, cholera and typhoid, which might result from carrying on certain types of work in domestic premises.
The types of work covered indicate how old this legislation is. It includes, for example: the making of iron and steel cables and chains; the manufacture of brass; the sorting of feathers; and the shelling of peas. This dates from the time when people shelled peas in their own homes for public consumption, and it was thought that the unsanitary conditions which existed in some homes would lead to contagious diseases being carried to the general public through the peas. We have moved on a little since those days.
The legislation on slaughterhouses and railway running sheds, which is to be removed, was enacted in order to ensure that certain regulations and orders, which were made under the Factories Act 1937, still applied when that Act was replaced by the Factories Act 1961.
Most of the early regulations and orders have already been revoked or have lapsed. The few which still remain will be replaced shortly when regulations, which were introduced in 1993 in order to implement several EC directives, come fully into effect.
The legislation, which covers hours of employment, relates to certain types of glass manufacture which are no longer carried out in the United Kingdom, due to the development of modern manufacturing techniques and to the changes in technology.
The legislation, which amends that which was enacted in 1928 which covered the safety of horizontal milling machines, lapses on New Year's Eve this year. If the amendments to that legislation are not revoked by that date, they will remain as a statutory instrument in force, even though the legislation which they amended, has already been repealed. That of course would be an absurd situation.
I do not think that these regulations should be regarded as controversial. All the provisions were identified by the Health and Safety Commission as being outdated and as no longer having any practical effect.
At the request of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the commission consulted widely and sought the views of both sides of industry on proposals to remove these provisions without replacement. The responses demonstrated that there was general support from those who are affected for these proposals. Another place debated, and approved, the proposed regulations on 28th November. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
1082
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th November be approved [ 1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. We accept, as we have always done, that there is a case for revoking legislative requirements and regulations that have become outdated and are thus quite redundant. There is no merit whatsoever in over-regulation, as we made clear when we discussed the deregulation legislation when it was before your Lordships in the last Session. I accept also that there was provision for consultation with the Health and Safety Executive. The last report of the HSE makes clear that it was involved in a wide-ranging consultation exercise. We do not intend to oppose the draft regulations that are before this House. In any event, it is not customary for us to do so when they have been approved by another place.
However, I have some anxieties, to which the Minister might possibly respond. They arise from my perusal of the report of proceedings of the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. I see that the intention is still to repeal Section 133 of the Factories Act 1961. To some extent I share the worries to which expression was given in the committee in the other place. As the Minister made clear this evening, the proposed regulations mean that homeworking in future will not be subject to the degree of supervision—inadequate as I believe it to have been—which existed under Section 133 and which I understand involved liaison with the HSE and local authorities. Reference is made to that in the HSE report. Indeed, the HSE has made it clear that it values highly co-operation with local authorities across a whole range of issues.
As I said earlier, some of the procedures covered by Section 133 are now completely outdated and we do not wish to revive anything of that kind. But what bothers me about homeworking is that, while for many highly educated and trained people, particularly those familiar with current technologies, homeworking may very well be a welcome development which fits their lifestyle and often their home accommodation, the same may not be true of all homeworking, particularly when undertaken by less skilled people, mainly women, who may not be able get any other kind of work, and particularly work which enables them to look after children. Often, such workers are exploited. They do not benefit from the mutual support that working together with others brings. They are often isolated and without knowledge of employment rights. Many of them are from ethnic minorities. In any event, the employment rights may not be available to them in that kind of work. The homes in which they work may not be suitable for the work that they do and may even be dangerous for the workers and their children. At least under Section 133, some means of applying protection existed.
We agree with the revocation of old and outdated regulations, but I am inclined to think that perhaps a complete repeal may not be appropriate. Updating might have been much more satisfactory. I understand that the National Group on Homeworking was not particularly enamoured of the present legislation, but clearly

1083
something is necessary in this area. I understand that the HSE is undertaking a review of regulations in regard to the self-employed. It may be that the Minister will maintain that that will cover homeworking. But what happens until that time? There does seem to be a gap there. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to enlighten the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks and for stating her intention not to oppose these orders. She feels that there should be an opportunity for people to do homeworking. She is quite right about that. People will do homeworking and there should be opportunities for it.
However, all that the regulations on homeworking required was notification of some types of homework to local authorities. Of itself, that does not help in maintaining standards. Homeworkers are protected as it is by existing health and safety law. The kind of laws that we are repealing today are, for instance, the Home Work (Lampshades) Order, which applies to:
"the manufacture of lampshades other than lampshades made wholly of metal or glass or stone".
One order refers to homeworking in:
"the manufacture of chocolates or sweetmeats, and any work incidental thereto".
Another order of 1913 refers to
"The making or filling of Cosaques, Christmas Crackers, Christmas Stockings or similar articles or parts thereof, and any work incidental thereto".
Those are very old-fashioned orders. That is the reason why they should be removed.
The point which concerned the noble Baroness was that there should be adequate protection for those people who continue to work at home under different circumstances. I can give her the assurance that that is covered already under the existing health and safety at work statutes. So they will be fully protected. It is only the removal of those pieces of legislation which are quite unnecessary that the regulations laid before your Lordships seek to achieve. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
5.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Street Works (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
This order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
The main purpose of the order is to introduce in Northern Ireland new provisions to facilitate the co-ordination and control of street works. It would replace the current, somewhat piecemeal arrangements found in the enabling legislation of the public utilities and in Northern Ireland's roads and road traffic law, with provisions similar to those in Part III of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Modifications have been made to reflect the different legislative and administrative situation in Northern Ireland.
The order would generally apply not only to roads maintainable by the Department of the Environment, the sole roads authority in Northern Ireland, but also to all private streets. Its key aims are to reduce the delays and disruptions to road users caused by street works and to improve the quality of workmanship. It would seek to achieve that by encouraging a more co-operative approach between the undertakers of works, the department and other street authorities, and by clearly defining their respective duties and responsibilities. Like the Act of 1991, the order sets out a broad framework within which matters of detail can be dealt with under regulations and codes of practice, thereby facilitating future amendment to reflect changing circumstances.
Turning to the content of the order, utilities and other undertakers would be fully responsible for their works, including the permanent reinstatement of the street surface. The department and other street authorities would have a duty to co-ordinate their own and undertakers' works in the street. A key instrument in this would be a register showing information on works of all kinds in streets. Many of the requirements in the order would be supported by criminal penalties for failure to comply.
Street works are a major factor in congestion and delays in towns and cities in Northern Ireland and there is a clear need for a flexible system of organising street works to accommodate increasing traffic and increasing activity by utilities. I am delighted that the increase in traffic reflects a growing economy. I am confident that the order, in broadly harmonising the law in Northern Ireland with that in Great Britain, would be to the benefit not only of the utilities, but also of considerable benefit to road users, from improved planning and execution of street works and reduced traffic congestion.
My Lords, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I support this matter. I have neither criticism, question nor complaint. If this is the last Northern Ireland business this Session, I wish the Minister a happy Christmas.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I had not intended to rise to my feet, but I offer from these Benches our best seasonal wishes to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it would be discourteous of me not to return those felicitations. I thank noble Lords for the great support that they have

1085
shown for Northern Ireland, this year, for which everyone in Northern Ireland is most grateful. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Administration of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme) Order 1995
5.40 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order will allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to authorise a private sector company to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme in England and Wales. The Teachers Pensions Agency administers the scheme at present. It provides a good service to members of the scheme. It has also achieved its key efficiency targets. Administering the scheme, however, is expensive. The TPA's running costs last year were over £15 million. We owe it to the taxpayer to see if we can make savings over and above those that the TPA itself plans to make.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Robin Squire, therefore announced on 1st November that the Government were inviting six private sector companies to tender for a contract to administer the scheme. All six companies judge that they could administer the scheme for less money than it would cost the TPA and to at least as high a standard. Inviting them to submit tenders will allow them to show whether they could indeed do so. We shall let a contract to administer the scheme only if we are satisfied that it would deliver better value for money.
I should like to assure your Lordships of three points. First, there is no question of privatising teachers' pensions. Any contract would be only for the administration of the scheme.
Secondly, letting a contract would not affect the size or safety of teachers' pensions in any way. The scheme does not have a real pension fund. Pension contributions go straight to the Exchequer, and the Exchequer guarantees the payments to which members of the scheme are entitled. Those payments cannot therefore be at risk. Since the contractor would not be managing a pension fund, he could not make a profit from it. We would instead pay the contractor an agreed fee for administering the scheme.
Thirdly, any contract would require a standard of service and performance that was at least as high as that which the TPA would provide. We would ensure that any contractor met that standard. All six companies would intend to do so.
The Government have two goals; first, to ensure that teachers and retired teachers continue to receive a rapid and efficient service of pensions administration, and, secondly, to achieve, if possible, further savings for the taxpayer. Our current work is designed to achieve those goals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the characteristic clarity with which he introduced the order and the issues which lie behind it. It is an enabling order; it is therefore especially important that we should be quite clear about what it will entitle, and enable, the Secretary of State to do.
The Minister will have read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested, to his equal profit and pleasure, the 23 columns of Hansard in which this order was debated in another place. And so it will come as no surprise to him to learn that we on these Benches are not entirely happy with the order. We wish the proposal had never been made and believe that no good will come of it. However, the order was voted upon in another place and it is the convention of your Lordships' House not to dispute such a decision.
We are unhappy with the order for a number of reasons. I shall mention just three. First, the debate in another place exposed the enormous power that any Minister may arrogate to himself under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, since it would allow total freedom to vary a scheme which has some 1.25 million participants and running costs of the order of £15 million per annum. The Minister may do that without primary legislation and with remarkably little debate.
Secondly, the order has not been the subject of a comprehensive review. The scheme is presently administered by the TPA and was formerly run by the predecessor of the DFEE. In the only consultation which the Government undertook the claims of neither the TPA nor the DFEE to administer the scheme were considered. The only option was how the scheme could best be privatised or—a hideous word which has now crept into our language—"contractorised". Somebody in America said recently that there is no noun that cannot be "verbed".
A fair and just review would have examined all possibilities and not prejudged the vital issue. As I understand it, the original consultation involved 131 organisations and 128 of those refused to endorse the proposal. Only three positive endorsements were recorded. But the Government ignored that result and went ahead in spite of it with the privatisation option, dismissing those who were consulted on the grounds that,
"their objections to contractorisation are not well founded".
Thirdly, we oppose the order because the proposal will undoubtedly lead to job losses among the TPA staff in Darlington. There can surely be no other way in which significant savings could be made, since everyone seems to agree that the TPA provides an excellent service to members of the scheme, has achieved or exceeded all its key efficiency targets and runs the proverbial "very tight ship".
We feel it necessary to try to clarify some of the issues which did not emerge clearly when the order was debated elsewhere. The Minister will be aware that it

1087
was a time-limited debate and that his honourable friend had only seven minutes in which to try to answer the host of questions he had been asked—and he had a few interruptions in the course of that. Perhaps I may therefore ask seven questions, all of which were raised in the other place and which his honourable friend did not have time to answer, even though he will by now no doubt have written to those who asked them. I gave the Minister notice of the questions because I feel it is necessary to have the Government's position on the order on the record and clearly stated for the avoidance of confusion.
Why were KPMG asked to advise on only one option for the future of the scheme? Given its terms of reference it seems to have been precluded from advising that the administration would be best left exactly as it is, or from considering any other possibility. Does not that fact, together with the Government's almost contemptuous dismissal of the clear result of its consultation exercise, suggest that the whole thing was cut and dried, decided in advance and ideologically controlled?
Secondly, why is the proposal being made at this particular moment? Was there not a Next Steps feasibility study in 1990 which created the agency, which has given complete satisfaction to everyone concerned? What has happened since 1990 to make it so urgent that the administration of the scheme be privatised?.
Thirdly, in the debate in the other place the Minister was unable to define what was meant by "core administration" in respect of the staff employed by the TPA at Darlington. He said that,
"logic suggests to me that a significant proportion, if not the entirety of the operations, would be based in Darlington".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/95; col. 1005]
It is widely believed that all six firms which have been invited to bid have said that they will retain their core administration in that town, but, my Lords, what else would they be expected to say, especially at this stage in a bidding process? Can the Minister give a closer definition of what is meant by a "core administration" and offer some better assurance of job security to the dedicated and successful staff of the TPA?
Next, the consultants, in their report, suggest that in a five to seven-year period something of the order of 20 per cent. savings could be made in the administration of the scheme. But, as I read the report, there is no evidence whatever to support such a claim. The TPA expects to cut its own costs by 7.5 per cent. for each year for the next three years, and we would like to know how this compares with the putative 20 per cent. estimated by KPMG.
Then, few people reading the Official Report of the debate in another place will understand the significance of the Hoskyns project which was apparently introduced to provide new information technology into the TPA. I certainly did not understand it. Hoskyns, whoever they are, apparently sub-contracted to an organisation known as UPSI. But UPSI went "downsi" and the scheme was
1088
a failure. Can the Minister tell us how another private sector company would be able to make similar provision which will not similarly collapse?
I would also be grateful if the Minister could explain where ultimate responsibility for the administration of the scheme lies. In so far as I understand the proposals, the tendering companies will know that, in the event of their failure, somebody else—and I suppose it will be the Government and the taxpayer—will find the money. If he will excuse the cliché, "If a private company's scheme fails, who picks up the tab?".
Finally, the question was asked in another place whether the Minister is prepared to publish the comments made by the six tendering companies, which will allow others to judge the effect of those comments upon any consequent contract. This seems to us a good idea and a "necessary transparency", as they say, and, so far as I know, no such assurance has been given.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience and forbearance while I have examined the minutiae of what is a complex and controversial proposal, on the ideology of which Government and Opposition are clearly and inescapably divided. But with a population which will be increasingly made up of pensioners, the matter is not one we can take lightly. Pensions are an extremely sensitive issue. And the memory of Mr. Robert Maxwell, though not fragrant, is still green.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I can deal with a number of the points the noble Lord raised, though whether I can satisfy him on all remains to be seen. I certainly suspect that I cannot satisfy him on the basic principle and on the power, about which he is unhappy, that we are taking on, because quite simply there are ideological differences between us. The noble Lord and his party do not like the private sector. I have no qualms whatsoever, and if I think that the scheme can be better administered by the private sector and at a saving to the taxpayer that is certainly the route I should like to pursue.
The noble Lord said that there was only one option for us—privatisation or contractorisation, or whatever. That is not the case. We shall look very carefully at all the six bids. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that if none of those six bids is satisfactory in the various ways that we wish them to be satisfactory we shall maintain the status quo. I can also assure him that we shall not accept any bid unless there are really genuine savings. As my honourable friend in another place put it—or perhaps not in another place but somewhere else—we are not just doing this for sixpence.
Perhaps I may also assure the noble Lord on redundancies. There may be redundancies. It is quite right that if someone can administer such a scheme with fewer people, they should so do. It would be wrong to maintain people in employment when there was no job for them to do. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we believe that they will be protected by the TUPE regulations. But that is a matter for any successor company to take advice on itself. Our understanding is that that would be the case.

1089
Perhaps I may briefly answer a number of the noble Lord's questions. I am grateful to him for giving me some idea of those questions in advance. I assure the noble Lord that, as he put it, my honourable friend Mr. Squire has already written to various of the noble Lord's honourable friends answering most of the points that he was unable to answer in the time available. If the noble Lord would like me to put that letter in the Library, I shall be more than happy so to do. I detect assent from the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asked why we commissioned KPMG to advise on only one option for the future administration of the scheme. I assure the noble Lord that the purpose of the report was to establish whether letting the contract to the private sector was feasible and whether it offered scope for greater efficiency. When we announced the period of consultation on the future of the TPA, we made clear that we were looking to secure further efficiency improvements but that we had not yet decided how best to do so and that letting a contract to administer the scheme was only one of the options available. We considered various options before deciding to invite expressions of interest for a contract. As I made clear to the noble Lord, if none of the offers coming forward from those six organisations is suitable, we shall maintain the status quo.
The noble Lord asked in effect why we were inviting tenders now when we decided in 1990 against letting contracts. Both in 1990 and now our key concern has been the same—to find the most efficient way of ensuring that teachers and retired teachers receive high quality pension service. Setting up the initial operation of the Teachers Pensions Agency has shown that letting a contract is indeed feasible. The KPMG report concluded that letting a contract offered a prospect of substantial improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. All six companies have declared that they would intend to seek a fee for administering the scheme that was lower than the expected cost of keeping the administration of it in the public sector. I believe we owe it to the taxpayer to find out whether such additional savings are available. That is why we invited tenders, and that is why we shall let a contract only if it will offer better value for money than keeping the administration of the scheme in the public sector.
The noble Lord asked what we meant by "core administration". All six companies that we have invited to tender intended to keep the core administration of the scheme in Darlington. By "core administration" we mean the functions the TPA currently carries out in Darlington to administer that scheme efficiently. That is what they have all offered to do. I hope that will provide the kind of assurance to those working for the TPA currently in Darlington that the noble Lord is seeking.
The noble Lord also asked about the Hoskyns contract. That is a contract between the Government and its contractor for new IT systems for the TPA. It is subject to litigation. Therefore I am afraid that it would he inappropriate for me to comment further at present. I am sure the noble Lord will accept that.
The noble Lord then asked who, as he put it, would pick up the tab if the contractor failed. I have to say that we certainly do not expect that to arise. We are satisfied
1090
on the basis of the evidence so far that all six companies are thoroughly reputable organisations. They all have access to substantial financial resources, and the relations between their staff and management are sound. We shall not let a contract unless we are satisfied that the company in question would administer the scheme, as I have stressed on more than one occasion, to the standard required. However, the Secretary of State will remain responsible for the scheme.
In the very unlikely event that the contractor failed, the Government would ensure proper and effective administration of the scheme just as we would if the Teachers Pensions Agency failed for any reason whatever. There is a risk of mistakes or failures in both the public and the private sectors. Risk can never be totally avoided. Our task is to avoid and minimise that risk so far as possible. We shall certainly make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place to do that, and we shall ensure that there are commensurate arrangements following the letting of the contract.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether we would publish the comments of companies on the draft statement of service requirements. We shall not because they would be commercially confidential. But we shall take account of the comments we receive from all the bodies that we have consulted before finalising the statement, and any contractor would have to deliver a standard of service performance at least as high as that which the TPA would achieve. Draft statements provide for such a standard and so will the final version of the statement, which we shall make available to the interested parties. There is simply no question of allowing companies, or anyone else for that matter, to water down the requirement of the statement and certainly none has sought so to do.
I hope that what I have said deals with all the questions which the noble Lord put to me and that he will accept it as the answer. I accept that there is an ideological difference between us, but that, in time, as the party opposite moves further and further towards us, it will recognise the benefits of the private sector. If only it would, it would be a great step forward. With those assurances and that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will accept this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Statute of the European Schools) Order 1995
6.00 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order designating the new convention defining the statute of the European Schools as a Community Treaty under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, and laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.
I will briefly explain, first, the convention to which the order applies and then the effect of the order itself. The convention defines a new statute—a set of administrative regulations—for the European schools, as agreed by the European Community member states and the European communities in Luxembourg in June 1994. It replaces the original statute of 1957; an inter-governmental agreement to which the UK acceded in 1972. There are nine European schools in six EC member states, including one in the UK, in Oxfordshire. They provide education for the children of employees of EC institutions and are jointly financed by the EC member states and the Commission itself.
The new statute, as described in the convention, introduces much needed measures to increase the administrative efficiency of the schools. The UK Government have supported the need for such reform for many years, as a means of easing the decision-making progress for routine administrative issues by ending the blanket requirement for unanimity in the governing body. Decisions on policy issues of substance will still require unanimous agreement. The new statute will also encourage the decentralisation of power and authority away from the centre by awarding more financial autonomy to individual schools. It is intended that this will further encourage the more efficient use of resources within the schools, based on local decisions. Finally, the new statute will provide teachers and parents with a more active role in the administration of the schools, through representation on the board of governors.
Having been signed by member states and the European Commission, the convention defining this new statute must now be ratified by each signatory. The debate today forms part of the final stage in this process of ratification by the UK. The convention has already undergone the usual scrutiny procedures, having been laid before both Houses in December last year for the requisite period of 21 days. The order before the House, which was discussed yesterday in Standing Committee
1092
in another place, will define the convention as a Community treaty and thus enable the United Kingdom to meet its financial obligations under the new statute. The nature and volume of expenditure under the new statute will be similar to existing expenditure under the current statute of the European schools.
It is clear, therefore, that there is nothing in the order, or the convention to which it applies, at which anyone, even some of the noble friends of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who sometimes sit behind him, could take offence. Indeed, the new administrative regulations defined by the convention are to be welcomed in the interests of the efficient deployment of United Kingdom resources in Europe. I urge the House to support the Motion and approve this order. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committed]—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for explaining this small but quite complex piece of bureaucratic necessity or necessary bureaucracy. It was, as he said, carefully considered yesterday by the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, who agreed to it, surprisingly, by nine votes to one, after surprisingly little discussion. It is an uncontroversial measure; we are all committed to excellence and diversity in education and the European schools are a special form of it. This order will increase the administrative efficiency of the schools and our own school at Culham in Oxfordshire will benefit from it. We fully support the order.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's warm welcome of the order. I certainly look forward to it being passed by this House without even the one dissenting voice in another place to which the noble Lord referred.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Trial Delays
  Northern Ireland: Trial Delays
  Racism: ECC Recommendation
  Racism: ECC Recommendation
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Purchase Controls
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Purchase Controls
  Agriculture Council, 29 and 30 November
  Agriculture Council, 29 and 30 November
  Northern Region: Development Assistance
  Northern Region: Development Assistance